Child Nutrition Directors: Leaders in Wellness Policy Implementation

1. Child Nutrition Directors: Leaders in Wellness Policy Implementation School Nutrition Association Annual National Conference Dallas, TX July 13, 2010 This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, under a Cooperative Agreement. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the view of policies of the US Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S Government.

2. Session Objectives • Describe the role of child nutrition directors in developing and implementing local wellness policies • Identify changes in school meals programs resulting from local wellness policy implementation • Identify child nutrition directors’ roles in implementing nutrition guidelines for competitive foods

3. Wellness Policy Components • Goals for nutrition education, physical activity and other school-based activities • Nutrition guidelines for all foods available on each campus • Guidelines for reimbursable school meals • A plan for measuring policy implementation • School and community involvement

4. Why School Wellness Policies? • Reach beyond USDA-funded meal programs to influence childhood health • Put responsibility at the local level • Recognize the critical role of schools in curbing the epidemic of childhood overweight • Provide an opportunity for school districts to create an environment conducive to healthy lifestyle choices

5. TN Demonstration Project • Three-year project (Fall 2006-Spring 2009) • Purposes • Observe and record activities and outcomes related to development and implementation of local wellness policies • Identify training/technical assistance needs • Describe successes and barriers to implementation of policies and policy sustainability

6. Project Collaborators FNS/State Cooperative Agreements CA – H Reed, J Kao, J Lewis, M Lussier, G Woodward-Lopez, P Crawford IA – R Litchfield, K Thomas, J Thorius, J Wendland PA – E McDonnell, V Fekete, C Probart NFSMI (PI) – M Cody FNS Project Coordinator – Y Wood

7. State Characteristics • California – statewide regulations on competitive foods/beverages sold in schools • Iowa – no statewide mandates on competitive foods/beverages sold in schools beyond USDA regulations • Pennsylvania – incentive program to encourage adoption of State voluntary nutrition guidelines for competitive foods

8. School District Characteristics

9. Data Collection • Fall 2007 – Spring 2009 • 31 districts, 84 schools – selected by State project teams • Data collection formats • Online surveys – district and school levels • Onsite interviews – district and school levels • Onsite observations – school level • Data extraction from public documents – district level

10. Child Nutrition Directors’ Roles in Developing and Implementing Local Wellness Policies Ruth Litchfield, PhD, RD, LD State Nutrition Extension Specialist/ Associate Professor – Food Science and Human Nutrition Iowa State University School Nutrition Association Annual National Conference Dallas, TX July 13, 2010

11. Child Nutrition Directors’ Roles • Development • Food service involvement • Discussions impacting food service • Implementation • Operational responsibility • Food service involvement • Current status of goals impacting food service

12. Development: Staff Involvement

13. Development: Policy Discussions • Reimbursable school meals program • 3% very controversial • 15% moderate controversy • 82% little controversy • Nutrition guidelines for other foods sold • 35% very controversial • 32% moderate controversy • 32% little controversy

14. Development: Policy Discussions • Nutrition guidelines for other foods offered • 26% very controversial • 40% moderate controversy • 34% little controversy

15. Implementation: Operational Responsibility (baseline)

16. Implementation: Operational Responsibility (endpoint)

17. Implementation: Staff Involvement % Districts

18. Implementation: Change in Staff Involvement % Change

19. Implementation: Staff Involvement % Schools

20. Implementation: Change in Staff Involvement

21. Implementation:Assurances for School Meals • Baseline • Implemented in 75% of schools • Priority in 46% of those implementing • Endpoint • Current foods and beverages assessed (61%) • Key personnel identified (54%) • Research foods and beverages (48%) • Key stakeholders aware of goal (42%)

22. How Implementing School Wellness Policies Leads To Change In School MealsThe School Wellness Policy Demonstration Project School Nutrition Association Annual National Conference Dallas, TX ♦ July 13, 2010 Heather Reed, M.A., R.D. Nutrition Education Consultant CA Department of Ed, Nutrition Services Division hreed@cde.ca.gov

23. Overview • Asked schools about progress and barriers in implementation • Conducted observations of facilities and meal foods • Took place in Fall 2007 and Spring 2009 • Grantees submitted progress reports and presented accomplishments

24. More schools started to implement the meal program goal area by project end Asked each school if they were able to focus on or take steps toward implementation of the meal program goal area. Percent of schools shown.

25. WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE EATING ENVIRONMENT? Responses from interviews and observations of facilities and foods sold

26. Changes in California Number and % of schools that listed these items as accomplishments

27. What the CA schools look like In Spring 2009, we observed… • 4.4 different F&V served with meals • Over 1/2 fresh; 27% “non-traditional” fruit • Milk mainly low-/non-fat; flavored common • 57% offered at least 1 whole grain option • 1/3 of grain products were whole grain • Juice uncommon • Fries common (38%) but usually baked

28. Percent of CA schools offering each entree type (Spring 2009)

29. Changes in Iowa Number and % of schools that listed these items as accomplishments

30. What the IA schools look like In Spring 2009, we observed… • 7.6 different F&V served with meals • Almost 1/2 fresh; 30% “non-traditional” fruit • Milk mainly low-/non-fat; flavored common • 47% offered at least 1 whole grain option • Almost 1/2 of grain products were whole grain • Juice offered at 76% of schools • Fries at 25% of schools (usually baked)

31. Percent of IA schools offering each entree type (Spring 2009)

32. Changes in Pennsylvania Number and % of schools that listed these items as accomplishments

33. What the PA schools look like In Spring 2009, we observed… • 5.2 different F&V served with meals • Over 1/2 fresh; 19% “non-traditional” fruit • Milk mainly low-/non-fat; flavored common • 69% offered at least 1 whole grain option • Over half of grain products were whole grain • Juice offered at 67% of schools • Fries at 26% of schools (all baked)

34. Percent of PA schools offering each entree type (Spring 2009)

35. Summary • Many schools started working on school meals before start of project • Schools have improved foods, involved students and increased meal participation • We observed more fruits and vegetables, fewer fast food-style entrees, mostly 1% and skim milk • There are more changes to implement – still some room for improvement

36. CHALLENGES Interviews and observations

37. Difficult economic circumstances We observed… • Increase in meal participation • Longer lines and more crowded dining areas • Decrease in some healthy foods • Fewer whole grains (CA and some PA schools), fewer fresh fruits and vegetables

38. Hard to overcome certain limitations • Some schools don’t have necessary facilities or need major renovation • Not enough funding for everything they’d like to do • Competition from off-campus vendors

39. Why wellness policies • More partnerships • Meal programs not just a stand-alone, separate set of regulations • More acceptance around importance of nutrition and health • Helps to change the school culture – school meals a big part of school wellness

40. And efforts are starting to pay off!

41. Child Nutrition Directors’ Roles in Implementing Nutrition Guidelines for Competitive Foods Elaine McDonnell, MS, RD Coordinator, Project PA Penn State University School Nutrition Association Annual National Conference Dallas, TX July 13, 2010

42. Nutrition Guidelines for Competitive Foods • Level of Implementation • Degree of Challenge • Challenges • Child Nutrition Directors’ Roles

43. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NE PA Other Meals CF (sold) Monitoring CF (offered) Level of Implementation of Policy Components % of Schools Indicating Full Implementation – Spring 2009 (n=84)

44. Implementation of Nutrition Guidelines – State Comparisons % of Schools Indicating Full Implementation – Spring 2009

45. Degree of Challenge of Policy Components % of Schools Indicating Very Challenging – Spring 2009 (n=84) 25 20 15 10 5 0 NE PA Other Meals Monitor CF (sold) CF (offered)

46. Step Least Often Identified: • Consequences established for violation. Steps Taken to Implement Nutrition Guidelines Steps Most Often Identified: • Current food/beverages assessed for compliance. • Key stakeholders made aware.

47. Why is Implementation of Nutrition Guidelines Challenging? • Competitive Foods (Sold): • Lack of Buy-in From Stakeholders (27%) • Cost/Funding Issues (13%) • Competitive Foods (Offered): • Lack of Buy-in From Stakeholders (48%) • Difficult to Enforce (23%)

48. Feedback about Implementation of Nutrition Guidelines • 37% of schools reported negative feedback from students about competitive foods (sold). • 33% and 29% of schools reported negative feedback from parents and teachers, respectively, about competitive foods (offered).

49. Child Nutrition Director Involvement • Classroom snacks provided through CN department. • CN department collaborations with student groups • Funds for healthier snacks • Documentation/measurement of implementation • Communication and education about nutrition guidelines

50. Lessons Learned • Local Wellness Policy (LWP) implementation includes a variety of staff at the district and school level. • LWP goals related to school foodservice have a high degree of implementation. • Schools have made impressive changes to their school meals programs.