Detailed Information on the
Summer Food Service Program Assessment

Examine program meal patterns to address consistency with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Support greater use of optional alternative operating procedures designed to encourage summer meal service by schools

Implement the Simplified Summer Program procedures nationwide, and promote the expanded availability of these simplified procedures as a means of recruiting new sponsors into the program.

Measure: Percentage of low-income children receiving meals in the summer (July) as a proportion of children receiving free and reduced price meals during the school year

Explanation:Measured as an average per month of total meals served to low-income children during summer months (Jun./Jul./Aug.) in the NSLP (free and reduced price only) and the SFSP (all meals), divided by free and reduced price meals served in March. Reflects the relative coverage of meal service for low-income children during the summer vs. the school year. Goal is to improve summer coverage.

Measure: SFSP sponsors

Explanation:The Summer Food Service Program provides free, nutritious meals to low-income children during the summer when school is out by partnering with local institutions, including schools, governments, and private nonprofits, often in concert with educational and recreational programs, to sponsor summer meal service. Recruiting sponsors to operate feeding sites is one of USDA's major challenges in expanding access to the program. This measure tracks our success in securing new sponsors to participate. USDA seeks to achieve its targets through its ongoing efforts to disseminate program information and encourage organizations to sponsor summer meal programs. The targets are ambitious, and are an important part of meeting the long-term goal to expand meal service to low-income children.

Measure: SFSP sites per sponsor

Explanation:USDA tracks the number of SFSP sites managed by each participating program sponsor as an indicator of efficiency. USDA is seeking to enlist "major sponsors" that operate more program sites, and for participating sponsors to increase the number of sites that they operate. Increasing sites per sponsor improves SFSP efficiency by increasing the amount of program access supported by each administrative entity, and by improving the State and Federal ability to manage and oversee program sponsors with resources available, promoting more prompt resolution of operational problems and related inefficiencies.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Goal - - To assist States to inititate and maintain nonproft food service for children in areas where poor economic conditions exist during periods when school is not in session

Evidence: National School Lunch Act

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

Explanation: Over 16 million low income children receive nutrititous free or reduced price meals each day when school is in session under the National School Lunch Program/School Breakfast Program. The Summer Food Service Program allows children in low income areas served by the program to continue to receive one or more nutritious meals per day when school is not in session and the NSLP is not available.

Evidence: National School Lunch Act, SFSP Regulations

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

Explanation: The program is operated through local service institutions, including School Food Authorities, local governments, and private nonprofit entities. It is designed to support and be operated in concert with other educational and recreational programs which serve low income children during periods when school is not in session.

Evidence: National School Lunch Act, SFSP Regulations

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

Explanation: Program eligibility is generally established by whether the site providing program services is located in an area in which 50% or more of children attending the local public school are eligible for free or reduced priced meals under the NSLP. Sites may also qualify by demonstrating on the basis of applications that they operate a program in which 50% or more of children served are eligible for free or reduced price meals. Certain other sites which serve low income children, such as homeless shelters or migrant feeding sites, also qualify as SFSP sites. Once site eligibility is established, all meals are served to participating children at no charge and are reimbursed at the same rate, which simplifies program administration.

Evidence: National School Lunch Act, SFSP Regulations

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Because sites are located in areas where poor economic conditions exist, the program structure ensures that it will reach its intended beneficiaries, low income children who are not in school and who qualify for free or reduced meals under the NSLP.

Evidence: National School Lunch Act, SFSP Regulations

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: NSLP is one of 15 Federal nutrition assistance programs that are designed to work together to increase food security and improve diet quality for children and low-income people in the United States. USDA uses measures of the prevalence of very low food security, and dietary quality as reflected by USDA's Healthy Eating Index, for children and low-income people, to track the overall outcomes to which nutrition assistance programs are intended to contribute. SFSP's role in advancing these outcomes is to provide free, nutritious meals to low-income children during the summer in places where school is not in session. USDA tracks the specific contribution of SFSP to the Department's strategic objectives for nutrition assistance by comparing the average number of low-income children served in the summer months with the number of low-income children served during the regular school year. This measure is a clear, easily understood, quantifiable outcome of SFSP operations, benchmarked against school meals operations. The relationship between this outcome and population-wide food security and dietary quality cannot be quantified, because of the conceptual difficulty of attributing changes in these complex metrics to specific influences. However, the program' premise is that the provision of nutritious meals and snacks to low-income children when and where school is not in session will reduce the risk of very low food security and promote good diet quality among those served, and thus increase food security and improve diet quality among program eligibles over the long-term.

Evidence: USDA Strategic Plan 2005-2010; internal USDA planning documents.

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

Explanation: Recognizing that SFSP is one of two programs (along with limited operations of NSLP in summer schools) that provide meals to low-income children during the summer months, USDA has set ambitious quantitative targets reflecting appropriate program growth over the long-term to support the Agency's cross-cutting nutrition assistance programs outcomes.

Evidence: Internal USDA planning documents.

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: In addition to tracking its long-term measure on an annual basis, USDA makes use of two annual performance metrics that link to its long term measure, consistent with the logic of the program: * USDA tracks the number of SFSP sponsors operating the program each summer, and targets increases in the number of sponsors as part of its effort to expand access to the program for low-income children. * USDA also tracks the number of SFSP sites managed by each participating program sponsor as an indicator of efficiency. USDA is seeking to enlist sponsors that operate more program sites, and for participating sponsors to increase the number of sites that they operate. Increasing sites per sponsor improves SFSP efficiency by increasing the amount of program access supported by each administrative entity, and by improving the State and Federal ability to manage and oversee program sponsors with resources available, promoting more prompt resolution of operational problems and related inefficiencies.

Evidence: Internal USDA planning documents.

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

Explanation: Targets to increase the number of SFSP sponsors are designed to increase access to meals in the summer. Sites per SFSP sponsor represent the outcome sought by USDA of its efforts to recruit major sponsors, and expand the operations of selected existing sponsors. USDA will seek to achieve these targets through its ongoing efforts to disseminate program information and encourage organizations to sponsor summer meal programs. Given the difficulty in recruiting sponsors found in prior year efforts, the targets are clearly ambitious, but their accomplishment is an important part of meeting the long-term goal to expand meal service to low-income children.

Evidence: Internal USDA planning documents.

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: USDA regulations and oversight and technical assistance processes are designed to ensure that State agencies, summer programs, school food authorities (SFAs) and other program partners, manage operations in support of annual and long term program goals, including regular reporting of key performance information. State agencies regularly collect data on the number of SFSP sites, sponsors, and meals served; data is reported monthly and annually to USDA. USDA also works closely with the advocacy community and professional associations, including the School Nutrition Association, the Food Research and Action Center, Americas Second Harvest, the National Recreation and Parks Association, and a range of community and faith-based organizations. to promote the SFSP sponsorship and raise awareness of the program in low-income communities, in support of the program goal to improve access and increase participation.

Evidence:

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 issues related to participation and program operations as well as the nutritional quality of SFSP meals are conducted about every ten years by independent contractors. The impact of the SFSP on participants' nutrition and health status have not been studied. FNS has conducted numerous studies examining issues related program access and the impact of various pilots designed to increase participation. Administrative data is also used to monitor changes in the number of sponsors and sites offering meals through SFSP. Federal authorities provide oversight of private nonprofit organizations and their compliance with program regulations. Reviews are comprehensive and corrective action is required for deficiencies identified in the reviews.

Evidence: Fox, M.K. et al. 2004. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health, Volume 3, Literature Review, USDA, Economic Research Service. Gordon, A. & R. Briefel. 2003, Feeding Low Income Children When School Is Out - The Summer Food Service Program: Executive Summary. USDA, Economic Research Service. Ohls, J. et al. 1988. An Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program: Final Report. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Singh, A. et al. 2004. Evaluation of the 14 State Summer Food Service Program Pilot Project. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Results of FNS-sponsored research are posted at www.fns.usda.gov/oane. ERS reports are 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: Program budget requests routinely estimate the effect of legislation, policy changes, and program participation trends on program costs. Budget requests are tied to the performance goals of the USDA Strategic Plan, as reflected in the Summary of Budget and Performance budget exhibit.

Evidence: FNS FY 2007 budget submission. USDA Strategic Goal 5: Improve the Nation's Nutrition and Health and its related objectives: 5.1-The Reduction and Prevention of Hunger by Improved Access to Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs and Strategic Goal and 5.2-Eating Habits More Consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

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

Explanation: USDA has recently developed a series of program-specific metrics, linked to the annual budget process and available using extant data, to assess SFSP operational performance annually and over the long-term, in conjunction with the outcome measures used across the nutrition assistance programs.

Evidence: Internal USDA planning documents.

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: State agencies review SFSP operations on a regular schedule, with special targeting requirements which assure more frequent oversight of institutions which receive the highest total reimbursements under the program in each jurisdiction. FNS does not routinely collect information on the results of these reviews. FNS does collect monthly data on the number of meals served under the program, and collects benchmark data each July on the number of sponsors, sites, and average daily attendance in the program. Data collection under this program, other than data on number of meals claimed for reimbursement, is complicated by fact that program is operated on different schedules and for different periods of time by a variety of different sponsoring institutions, and is affected by issues such as local school schedules, weather, and other geographic consideratons in different parts of the country.

Evidence: SFSP Regulations; National Data Bank/Keydata Reports

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: 'State agencies and program operators are reviewed though periodic Management Evaluations. Identified program deficiencies must be addressed through corrective action and payments may be withheld if deficiencies are not corrected

Evidence: Child Nutrition Management Evaluation Guidance

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated by formula consistent with program regulations. Funds are obligated appropriately and consistently for their intended purpose and within a timely manner and schedule.

Evidence: SF-132, Apportionment and Reapportionment Schedule; SF-133, Report on Budget Execution and Budget Resources; and Financial Status Report (SF-269).

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: Sub grantees are required to use approved competitive sourcing in program procurements. The agency works with State agency partners to identify, develop, and provide funding where available for IT improvements to increase program efficiency

Evidence: SFSP Regulations

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program relies on data from the National School Lunch Program to target sites to areas where NSLP free/reduced price enrollments indicate that poor economic conditions exist. SFSP operators are encouraged to procure meals from NSLP schools, which are familiar with Child Nutrition Program meal pattern requirements and are equipped to produce nutritious, healthy meals in a cost effective manner. FNS and State agencies work with community organizations and advocacy groups to identify organizations which provide or may be able to provide programs for children in low income areas during periods when school is not in session, and work with these groups to encourage and support them in incorporating the SFSP into their program operations.

Evidence:

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Financial Management practices of the agency comply with 1) Federal financial management system requirements, 2) Federal accounting standards and 3) the Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. Financial Management practices applicable to the program are established in program regulation and OMB Circulars. Program regulations stipulate that the agency perform state and local evaluations and review claims for meal service & meal counting and claiming practices. Federal financial management reviews assure that administrative costs are accounted for properly.

Evidence: Guidance requirements: National School Lunch Act and program regulations; OMB Circulars: A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments), A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments), A-123 (Management Accountability and Control), A-136 (Financial Reporting Requirements). Reports/procedures/activities: USDA Financial Statement audits; Program management evaluations; Program counting & claiming reviews; Federal Financial managment reviews.

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

Explanation: This program does not have any declared management deficiencies or material weaknesses. It was assessed for risk of significant improper payment risks in FY2005 and FY2006. It has been deemed not subject to such payments. This program is scheduled for yearly assessments of risk for improper payments. The program is concentrating efforts on outreach to identify and support potential program sponsors in areas of poor economic conditions which are not currently served or are underserved by the SFSP. Recent legislative changes will streamline reporting procedures for sponsors in states with the lowest ratios of SFSP participation to school year free/reduced price NSLP participation, which will further encourage program expansion into the areas of greatest demonostrated economic need.

Evidence: Ongoing S/A reviews of sponsor operations. Regulatory change was made to ensure that sponsors who received larger shares of program payments receive more frequent oversight.

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

Explanation: Grantee (State agency) activities are assessed periodically through a structured Management Evaluation Process. Sub-grantees (local service insititutions) must receive pre-approval visits before beginning program operations, and must be reviewed during their first year of operations. Ongoing program operators are reviewed by the State agency not less than once every three years; each year, States must review operators accounting for a total of one half of total reimbursements earned under the program in prior years, ensuring that operators who receive significant levels of program reimbursement will receive the highest level of oversight.

Evidence:

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: The program collects and reports data on the number of inistitutions and sites operating the NSLP and the number of meals served by type under the program each month. During July, the program collects information on the average daily attendance at participating SFSP sites.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: Between 2002 and 2005, USDA has maintained the percentage of low-income children receiving meals in the summer at roughly 35%. This reflects growth in the number of children served during the summer over the period, but only at a rate consistent with growth seen in the school meals programs during the school year. Cross-Cutting Measures: Reductions in the rate of very low food security exceeded USDA's targets through 2000. Rising unemployment and increased poverty have contributed to an increase in the rate of very low food security in subsequent years. There was a small improvement in the HEI between 1996 and 1999-2000.

Evidence: USDA-FNS National Data Bank; USDA Household Food Security reports; Healthy Eating Index report.

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

Explanation: After a substantial drop between 2001 and 2002, there has been a gradual increase in the number of SFSP sites and sponsors, reflecting progress in the goal to improve access to the program.

Evidence: USDA-FNS National Data Bank

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

Explanation: There has been a small increase in the ratio of sites to sponsors between 2002 and 2005, reflecting a small improvement in the program's administrative efficiency.

Evidence: USDA-FNS National Data Bank

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

Explanation: Almost all SFSP sites serve lunch and almost half of the sites serve breakfast. The nutrient profiles of SFSP breakfast and lunches are similar to those reported for breakfasts served in SBP and lunches served in NSLP. Findings of plate waste analyses were similar to results of NSLP plate waste studies. No studies have been conducted to date to estimate an annual estimate of erroneous payments.

Evidence: Fox, M.K. et al. 2004. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health, Volume 3, Literature Review, USDA, Economic Research Service. Gordon, A. & R. Briefel. 2003, Feeding Low Income Children When School Is Out - The Summer Food Service Program: Executive Summary. USDA, Economic Research Service.

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

Explanation: Most SFSP feeding sites (83%) are open enrollment sites located in areas that contain a substantial portion of low-income households. Since 1986, the number of sites that provide breakfast and the number that stay open for longer than 6 weeks have increased significantly. SFSP breakfasts provide more than one-quarter of the 1989 RDA for key nutrients such as protein, vitamins A and C, iron and calcium and about 21 percent of the Recommended Energy Allowance (REA). The SFSP lunches provide, on average, more than one-third of the RDA for key nutrients as well as approximately one-third of the REA. A small qualitative study examining reasons why eligible elementary school children don't participate in SBSP found that many low-income households were not aware of SFSP sites in their immediate geographical area.

Evidence: Fox, M.K. et al. 2004. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health, Volume 3, Literature Review, USDA, Economic Research Service. Gordon, A. & R. Briefel. 2003, Feeding Low Income Children When School Is Out - The Summer Food Service Program: Executive Summary. USDA, Economic Research Service. Felton & Harley/Westat. 2004. Analysis of Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and Food Needs of Nonparticipating Children. 2006. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Results of FNS-sponsored research are posted at www.fns.usda.gov/oane. ERS reports are available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications.