1. Understanding Attrition in the Free and Reduced School Lunch Program
Student Researcher: Nate Kelty; Faculty Mentor: Jonah Ralston
University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, Department of Political Science
Results
Focus Group
On average the parent and staff participants in the focus group rated their perception of the program as a 5, with staff members being higher on average and the parents being lower.
Two staff members that regularly ate school lunch indicated that they noticed the food quality declining over time, a result that was reciprocated by my student survey.
Also represented by the student survey, the staff participants indicated that they noticed students will go to the aquatic center to buy snacks rather than eating the school lunch.
Both parents and staff indicated that the lunch room is not organized effectively and may cause a lack of participation in the program as a whole.
2) Student Survey
The survey respondents indicated apathy towards the school lunch program as a whole with a majority not recommending it as represented by the picture below. I concluded that apathy towards the lunch program as whole implies a negative connotation with school lunch in general, not a stigma against FRL participants.
Introduction
The purpose of this research project was to understand and isolate the potential cause(s) of attrition in the Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) program for the Whitewater Unified School District.
Results Continued
3) Application Analysis
Every denied application I reviewed was denied for the same reason: excessive income.
There are a handful of factors that contributed to families being “pushed” above the income threshold. These factors include
Child income. Children living at home contribute to the families overall income. So while the child may be working to increase income for their families or himself/herself this extra income can adversely affect the family by moving them out of the free and reduced lunch threshold.
State Benefits. Certain benefits from the state also contribute to the families’ income in the scope of qualifying for free or reduced lunch. While a family may rely on these benefits for survival, these benefits can also negatively impact the family by preventing them from receiving free and reduced lunch for their children.
Change in household size. Increases in household size change the income requirements for free and reduced lunch. A change of just one household member can bump the family out of the qualifying threshold.
Research Question
What are the key factors that may affect participation in the free and reduced school lunch program?
Methodology
I used three different approaches for collecting data: a focus group, a student survey, and an analysis of rejected Free and Reduced Lunch applications
Focus Group
I led a discussion with parents and faculty of Whitewater High School, asking them about potential problems the school district, and the high school in particular, faces when it comes to the school lunch program. These questions included:
Ranking the quality of food offered by Whitewater High School on a scale from one to 10 (10 being the best).
Concerns about the FRL program and Whitewater’s participation in it.
Student complaints about the food.
Possible improvements that could be made to the lunch program.
Any additional feedback on the lunch program as a whole.
2) Student Survey
Per IRB rules, I conducted an anonymous survey of 18-year-old high school students. This survey focused on gauging the perception of the student body towards the school lunch program as a whole through a representative sample of students.
One potential factor the school district was concerned with in particular was the presence of a negative stigma associated with being in the FRL program. In addition to stigma other questions asked concerned:
food quality, portion size, competition, and a response to an open ended question about improving the program.
Of the potential number of respondents I obtained an approximate response rate of 50%.
3) Application Analysis
I analyzed denied FRL program applications to gauge why families were not allowed to participate in the program. For this analysis I looked at household size, income, and any State benefits the family included on the application in order to determine the cause for their denial.
Conclusions
Not a FRL problem but a school lunch problem. As the focus group and student surveys indicate, students feel that FRL should be offered but the majority would not recommend eating the school-provided lunch. This negative connotation associated with school lunch demotes participation in school lunch as a whole and trickles down to FRL participation.
Involve Students. Students want to be involved and have a voice in the lunch selection process.
Inform Parents. Parents need to be informed about income guidelines when applying for FRL, as the application analysis indicates. The majority of families are denied for the same reasons. By letting families know the guidelines the school district can reduce the amount of denied applications.
Address competition. Students are drawn to other places to eat. By addressing quality concerns, portion sizes, and meal variety the school district can address the competition issue.
Improve organization. Long and overcrowded lunch lines deter students from taking school lunch.
Students largely agree that the school should offer free and reduced lunch.
Citations
Bhatia, R., Jones, P., & Reicker, Z. (2011). Competitive Foods, Discrimination, and Participation in the National School Lunch Program. American Journal of Public Health, 101,
Food Research and Action Center. (2015). National School Lunch Program: Trends and Factors Affecting Student Participation.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (2016). Strategies for Successful Implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
Students indicated that negative stigma is not a contributing factor to lack of participation in the lunch program.
Instead, factors like poor food quality, small portion sizes, and lack of a variety of menu options leave students to either bring their own lunch or use off campus options.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Undergraduate Research Program for sponsoring my project through the CBR grant program and my community partner Kelly Seichter for her help and support. I would like to give special thanks to my mentor Jonah Ralston for being a fantastic guide and refrence throughout this project.