TY - JOUR
T1 - Factors Associated with Universal Free School Meal Provision Adoption among US Public Schools
AU - Hecht, Amelie A.
AU - Stuart, Elizabeth A.
AU - Pollack Porter, Keshia M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - Background: The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows high-poverty schools participating in US Department of Agriculture meal programs to offer universal free school meals. Emerging evidence suggests benefits of CEP for student meal participation, behavior, and academic performance. Although CEP became available nationwide in 2014, in school year 2019–2020, one third of eligible schools were not participating. Objective: This study evaluates which school, district, and state factors are associated with CEP participation. Design: Cross-sectional study comparing CEP-participating with eligible nonparticipating schools to assess the relationship between CEP participation and school, district, and state factors. Participants: US public schools eligible for CEP in school year 2017–2018 (n = 42,813). Main Outcome Measures: CEP participation. Statistical Analyses Performed: Penalized regression variable selection methods to determine which factors contribute information to the model. Generalized logistic regression to predict odds of CEP participation unadjusted and adjusted for each factor in the full sample and in stratified analyses by whether a state was part of the CEP phase-in period (early vs late implementing states). Results: In the full sample, adjusted odds of CEP participation were greater in states where CEP had been available longer (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34, 1.67). In late implementing states, adjusted odds of CEP participation were higher in schools with more students directly certified for free meals (OR in schools with 80%–89% vs 30%–39% directly certified: 19.32; 95% CI, 12.98, 28.76), Title I schools (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.55, 2.21), and urban schools (OR suburban vs urban, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36, 0.59). Differences by school level, enrollment, district size, student race/ethnicity, and geographic region also existed. Conclusions: Findings may help advocates, state agencies, and policymakers understand potential barriers to adoption and guide research exploring effective strategies to promote uptake. Future research should use qualitative and longitudinal designs to explore barriers to adoption, including cost and state and local policies.
AB - Background: The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows high-poverty schools participating in US Department of Agriculture meal programs to offer universal free school meals. Emerging evidence suggests benefits of CEP for student meal participation, behavior, and academic performance. Although CEP became available nationwide in 2014, in school year 2019–2020, one third of eligible schools were not participating. Objective: This study evaluates which school, district, and state factors are associated with CEP participation. Design: Cross-sectional study comparing CEP-participating with eligible nonparticipating schools to assess the relationship between CEP participation and school, district, and state factors. Participants: US public schools eligible for CEP in school year 2017–2018 (n = 42,813). Main Outcome Measures: CEP participation. Statistical Analyses Performed: Penalized regression variable selection methods to determine which factors contribute information to the model. Generalized logistic regression to predict odds of CEP participation unadjusted and adjusted for each factor in the full sample and in stratified analyses by whether a state was part of the CEP phase-in period (early vs late implementing states). Results: In the full sample, adjusted odds of CEP participation were greater in states where CEP had been available longer (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34, 1.67). In late implementing states, adjusted odds of CEP participation were higher in schools with more students directly certified for free meals (OR in schools with 80%–89% vs 30%–39% directly certified: 19.32; 95% CI, 12.98, 28.76), Title I schools (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.55, 2.21), and urban schools (OR suburban vs urban, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36, 0.59). Differences by school level, enrollment, district size, student race/ethnicity, and geographic region also existed. Conclusions: Findings may help advocates, state agencies, and policymakers understand potential barriers to adoption and guide research exploring effective strategies to promote uptake. Future research should use qualitative and longitudinal designs to explore barriers to adoption, including cost and state and local policies.
KW - Community Eligibility Provision
KW - Food insecurity
KW - Implementation
KW - Nutrition policy
KW - School meals
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85113281514&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85113281514&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jand.2021.06.282
DO - 10.1016/j.jand.2021.06.282
M3 - Article
C2 - 34427189
AN - SCOPUS:85113281514
SN - 2212-2672
VL - 122
SP - 49
EP - 63
JO - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
JF - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
IS - 1
ER -