The Arizona Department of Education
Health and Nutrition Services

2004 Team Nutrition Grant Results

Arizona Healthy School Environment Model Policy
Implementation Study
Secondary Schools
September 2006

1

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………...
Purpose………………………………………………………………………..
Methods……………………………………………………………………….
Study Design………………………………………………………….
Participant Selection…………………………………………………..
Data Collection………………………………………………………..
Results………………………………………………………………………...
Participant Summaries…………………………………………………
Nutritional Analysis……………………………………………………
Financial Analysis……………………………………………………..
Discussion……………………………………………………………………...
Nutrition……………………………………………………………….
Financial……………………………………………………………….
Summary and Conclusion……………………………………………...

i

Page
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
9
33
40
40
40
46

INTRODUCTION
In the past twenty years the number of overweight children has more than doubled in the
United States and tripled among adolescents. Over thirty percent of American children
and adolescents aged six to nineteen are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight.
Obesity can have a serious impact on a child’s health. Chronic diseases, once considered
adult problems, are now evident in children; diseases such as Type II Diabetes,
hypertension, and cardiovascular disease are now diagnosed in children with increased
prevalence. The causes of obesity are multi-faceted and include genetic factors, poor
eating habits, inactivity, and environmental factors.
In recent years, more attention has been given to the nutritional quality of foods and
beverages being sold in schools through vending, snack bars, school stores, and a la carte
offerings. Foods and beverages sold outside of the federally regulated National School
Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) are known as competitive
foods. Competitive foods are sold in competition with program meals and are generally
of poor nutritional value. Such foods and beverages are often energy dense providing
high amounts calories, fat, and sodium while providing little other nutrition. A recent
report found that in both middle schools and high schools, seventy-five percent of
beverage options and eighty-five percent of snack foods were of poor nutritional value.
This is alarming since a national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) found that forty-three percent of elementary schools, seventy-four
percent of middle schools and ninety-eight percent of high schools offer foods and
beverages through vending machines, snack bars, or school stores.
Schools alone cannot solve the nutritional problems of children. However, children spend
many hours of each day in a school setting learning and socializing. Schools have a
responsibility to help keep their students safe and healthy. Unfortunately, due to budget
concerns many schools have elected to sell foods and beverages of little nutritional value
to help offset costs. School environments that offer such foods and beverages on campus
often send mixed messages when students are taught about good nutrition in the
classroom but are then enticed by an array of less nutritious foods and beverages offered
in vending machines, school stores, snack bars, and a la carte lines.

PURPOSE
In view of the increased prevalence of overweight and obesity in American youths, the
Arizona Department of Education’s Health and Nutrition Services has taken the initiative
to evaluate the nutritional content of competitive foods and beverages sold on school
campuses in Arizona. This study also intends to evaluate the financial implications to
schools when replacing foods and beverages found to be less nutritious with healthier
choices.
In 2003, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) was granted a competitive United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Team Nutrition Training Grant. The goal was
to guide and assist schools to create and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive school
health program. Such a program integrates a school’s child nutrition programs, with the
classroom, the community, and the entire school environment.
1

A total of thirty schools applied for mini-grants ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 to assist
with the implementation of the Arizona Healthy School Environment Model Policy
developed by the Arizona Action for Healthy Kids team. Eight schools were selected
based on specific scoring criteria. Nutrition and financial information was collected from
the participating schools to evaluate the nutritional and fiscal impact of implementing the
model policy.
Results were encouraging; schools were able to improve the nutritional content of foods
and beverages offered through vending, school stores, and a la carte lines without
suffering a financial hardship. To view the 2003 Team Nutrition Grant Report in its
entirety please visit: http://www.ade.az.gov/health-safety/cnp/teamnutrition/2003-2004/.
Positive food practices and attitudes established during a child’s early years affects food
choices and ultimately nutritional status throughout life. Developing good habits in the
early years is less challenging to most individuals than altering existing poor behaviors’
during the secondary school age.
To address concerns regarding the feasibility of implementing the model policy in
secondary schools, specifically at the junior high and high school level where the
majority of competitive food sales occur, the ADE applied for and received a competitive
2004 Team Nutrition Training Grant. The 2004 Team Nutrition Training Grant provided
the resources needed to further pilot the Healthy School Environment Model Policy in
secondary schools.

METHODS
The Arizona State Board of Education approved the 2004 Team Nutrition Grant Study on
January 24, 2005.
Study Design
Secondary schools voluntarily applied for one of four 2004 Team Nutrition mini-grants.
Selected schools implemented the Arizona Healthy School Environment Model Policy
during the 2005 fall semester.
The model policy contains four areas of emphasis:
• Food Service Operation
• Nutrition Education
• Food Choices at School and a Healthy School Environment
• Physical Activity and a Healthy School Environment
Participating schools were required to implement the Food Service Operation and the
Food Choices at School components of the model policy. The schools were not required
to implement the Nutrition Education and Physical Activity components of the model
policy however, each school was strongly encouraged to implement all four areas of
emphasis.

2

The Arizona Department of Education developed the Team Nutrition Grant Nutrition
Standards for foods and beverages sold in vending machines, snack bars, school stores
and a la carte lines. The standards were based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Participating schools were required to ensure each item sold met the nutrition standards.
The Team Nutrition Grant Nutrition Standards for food items being offered in vending,
school store, a la carte, and snack bars are as followed:
• 30% or less of total calories from fat (excludes seeds and nuts)
• 10% or less of total calories from saturated and trans fatty acids (combined)
• No more than 35% total sugar by weight (excludes dairy products and fruits and
vegetables)
• Must contain at least 1 gram of fiber (excludes dairy products)
• Maximum 300 calories per serving
The Team Nutrition Grant Beverage Guidelines are as followed:
• Water – Pure water, nothing added
• Flavored Water – Non-carbonated unless exempted by the USDA
• Juice – 100% fruit or vegetable juice, non-carbonated unless exempted by the
USDA, limited to 12 oz. or less
• Juice Based Smoothie – Juice must be 100%, limited to 12 oz. or less
• Milk - 2% fat or less, limited to 12 oz. or less
• Milk Alternatives – Enriched, low fat or less, limited to 12 oz. or less
• Yogurt Based Drinks/Smoothies – Low fat or less, limited to 12 oz or less
• Sport Beverages - Limited to 12 oz. or less
Participant Selection
The 2004 Team Nutrition mini-grants were marketed on the Arizona Department of
Education’s School Health and Nutrition Programs website. Other promotional strategies
included contacting Arizona secondary schools via email and telephone. Five secondary
schools voluntarily submitted applications. Originally four $15,000 mini-grants were
available. As a result of only five schools submitting applications the ADE extended the
number of mini-grants to five. The five secondary schools awarded the mini-grants
include:
• Cesar Chavez High School – Phoenix Union High School District
• Flagstaff High School – Flagstaff Unified School District
• Mile High Middle School – Prescott Unified School District
• Sierra Middle School – Sunnyside Unified School District
• Thunder Mountain Middle School – Apache Junction Unified School District
Flagstaff High School withdrew from the pilot study prior to the model policy
implementation period and receiving grant funds leaving the remaining four secondary
school to implement the model policy.

3

Data Collection
A pre-implementation survey questionnaire was developed to assess each school’s
understanding of the pilot study as well as to identify any challenges the schools felt they
might encounter. The questionnaire also identified the school’s level of commitment to
the pilot study and benchmarks they would like to accomplish.
To evaluate the objectives of the 2004 Team Nutrition mini-grants the Arizona
Department of Education collected financial data and nutritional information for all foods
offered during the school day.
To determine if revenue would be impacted by implementing the Arizona Healthy School
Environment Model Policy, key financial data was requested of each pilot school. Preimplementation financial data was collected for the 2004 fall semester prior to
implementing the model policy. Post-implementation financial data was collected for the
2005 fall semester following the implementation of the model policy. Financial forms
were completed monthly by each school. Information regarding program meals, student
sales, a la carte sales, vending sales and any other food sales occurring during school
hours was collected.
A random sample of one weeks’ lunch menus along with all other foods available for sale
during school hours was analyzed by ADE staff using Nutrikids® for Windows by
Lunchbyte Systems. The analysis was then shared with the pilot school food service staff.
The information was incorporated into the changes planned in order to meet the required
steps of implementing the model policy. The nutritional analysis was conducted again
after the model policy was implemented. The pre and post-model policy implementation
analysis was compared to identify pre and post compliance levels with the model policy.

RESULTS
Participant Summaries
Thunder Mountain Middle School- The Administration at Thunder Mountain Middle
School made some positive changes on campus prior to participating in the Team
Nutrition Mini-grant. Physical Education (PE) classes were available year-round to
students but due to the lack of sufficient Physical Education teachers, not all students
were able to participate year-round. The school had opened their sports fields to students
during lunch periods and also offered intramural sports after school. The vending
machines on campus only dispensed water. The Administration believes the mini-grant
offered further motivation to improve the school environment. Such as further improving
food and beverage choices available on campus.
The school has moved away from food incentives and discontinued selling cookie dough
as a fundraiser. Fundraisers now include magazine sales, candle sales, entertainment
books, and holiday wrapping paper. The Junior Honor Society replaced donut sales with
food and beverage items that meet the Team Nutrition Grant Nutrition Standards and as
reported by the school’s Principal, suffered no financial impact.

4

The Food Service Department also improved the foods and beverages available in their
a la carte lines. Instead of cookies, muffins, donuts, pizzas, and nachos with cheese sauce,
students can choose baked chips, granola bars, chef salads, fruit trays, yogurt, and a
student favorite: low fat six inch Subway subs. The department saw a noticeable increase
in a la carte sales during the model policy implementation period. After the evaluation
period, it was reported a la carte sales further increased with the addition of an iced base
100 percent juice beverage and non-fat frozen yogurt. Both items quickly became popular
with the students. Student participation in the NSLP and SBP increased during the
evaluation period. Breakfast participation increased more than fifty percent. Lunch
participation increased nearly ten percent during the same time period. The Food Service
Department also conducted their second annual food tasting show. Members of the
Student Council and parents were invited to taste a variety of foods and beverages all of
which met the nutrition standards. Items that received positive remarks will be available
next school year.
Vending machines were minimal at Thunder Mountain Middle School prior to the
implementation period. Only beverage machines were available to students. Three
machines offered water and one machine offered electrolyte-replacement drinks. The
distributor was unable to reconfigure the vending machine to dispense 12 ounce Gatorade
containers. Therefore, a timer was placed on the machine restricting access during school
hours. The school experienced a modest decline in vending revenue which in part may be
due to machines not working properly. It was reported by the school’s Principal that there
were times when one or more machines were broken, or would jam, or take the students
money without dispensing a beverage. After the evaluation period, the machines were
vandalized on two occasions. The decision was made to remove the vending machines
from campus. As a result, four groups which included the library, chorus, science, and
Junior Honor Society began selling bottled water and Propel fitness water to the student
body. The Principal reports the groups are now bringing in three to four times more
revenue than the vending machine provided.
Both the school’s administration and food service department reported being pleased with
the results of the Team Nutrition Mini-Grant, but Thunder Mountain Middle School is
not done yet; students can expect more changes next school year. The school is adding an
additional PE teacher which will allow all students the opportunity to participate in PE all
school year. Other planned programs include an incentive program for students who
provide evidence of leading a healthier lifestyle.
Mile High Middle School- The staff at Mile High Middle School developed a committee
to help identify positive changes in the areas of nutrition and physical activity. Mile High
Middle School used Team Nutrition Mini-grant funds to purchase a software system and
supporting equipment to help enhance the efficiency of their school lunch and breakfast
programs. The goal was to reduce the time students spend in line waiting for program
meals. The school hoped shorter lines would increase participation in the NSLP and SBP.
Included in the software was a nutritional analysis program which assisted them in
improving food choices available on campus.

5

The Food Service Department made improvements in their offerings in the snack bar.
They already had a policy prohibiting food items with a first ingredient of sugar or fat.
The department removed items such as Twinkies, donuts, honey buns, and fruit pies.
Other items eliminated included nachos with cheese, several pizzas, and other pastries.
Items offered during the model policy implementation period included baked chips,
cereal and granola bars, non fat frozen yogurt, fruit and yogurt platter, Chef Salad, and
turkey and veggie wraps.
The Food Service Department experienced a decline of about twenty percent in snack bar
sales. A concern of the Food Service Director was the availability of snack items that met
the nutrition standards. The school experienced some difficulty finding or keeping items
in stock. This was in part due to the availability of items through the districts cooperative
purchase agreement. In order to find additional items the Food Service Director had to
purchase items at a local wholesale store. The Director believes if they would have had a
larger variety of items available during the time of evaluation the school would not have
experienced a decline in snack bar revenue. However, participation in program meals
increased significantly. The total number of lunches served increased twenty percent and
profits from breakfast and lunch program meals increased forty-five percent during the
evaluation period. The removal of low-nutrient dense foods seems to have motivated
students to participate in program meals.
The vending machines on campus only offered beverages. Prior to the model policy
implementation period vending machines offered a variety of twelve and twenty ounce
sodas, twenty ounce electrolyte-replacement drinks, as well as fruit drinks, and water.
The soda vending machines were removed from campus. The machines now only offer
water and twelve ounce electrolyte-replacement drinks which are not available to
students during lunch periods. Mile High Middle School’s Principal stated he did not
want the vending machines to compete with the Food Service Department. There was no
loss in vending machine revenue; in fact, revenue increased $175 during the
implementation period. This prompted the school’s Principal to state, “if kids have two
dollars in their pocket they will find someplace to spend it.”
Both the Principal and Food Service Director of Mile High Middle School believe
participating in the mini-grant was a positive experience and look forward to continuing
their efforts.
Sierra Middle School- Big changes occurred at Sierra Middle School during the model
policy implementation period. Sierra used Team Nutrition Mini-grant funds to purchase a
new health curriculum to help teach students the importance of good nutrition and
physical activity. They then gave students plenty of opportunities to practice what they
learned.
Health and nutrition is no longer just a subject covered in health class at Sierra Middle
School. An Art teacher began a nutrition unit to teach students about the different
ingredients in processed foods. Their assignment was to “catch” and photograph family
and friends being physically active or eating healthy foods. Utilizing information from

6

MyPyramid.gov, Team Nutrition, University of Arizona, and the National Dairy Council
nutritional studies were also intergraded into Science and Physical Education classes.
The school participated in the International Walk to School Day. The theme was about
making healthy choices and becoming more active. Students were encouraged to walk to
school and were joined by National Guardsmen, the University of Arizona mascot, and
their teachers. During the first hour of school students participated in a school-wide field
day. Fun activities and healthy snacks were available and each student received a bag
with VERB literature, frisbees and balls, information about MyPyarmid.gov, “Got Milk?”
stickers, and walking and biking safety literature.
In the past Sierra was very fond of their parties. Their celebrations often centered on
foods such as candy, pizza, and cake. This school year physical activity parties often
replaced food parties. Field days included pool parties, rock climbing, inflatable jumpers,
and other activities.
Sierra Middle School is also excited about their purchase of physical fitness equipment
this past spring which included two Elliptical machines, a treadmill, a Smith Machine, a
Universal Weight Machine, and an Inner or Outer Thigh Machine.
The Food Service Department made positive changes as well. Recipes were adjusted to
reduce calorie and fat content. A free salad bar containing a wide variety of fruits and
vegetables was added for all students to enjoy. It was reported students often take whole
fresh fruits with them to eat later in the day. During an eighth grade graduation party this
spring, a large fruit salad was provided as part of the celebration. According to the
Physical Education teacher the fruit salad was gone in no time, she stated “never before
had that happened.”
The Food Service Department also improved the food and beverage choices available at
the snack bar. The department eliminated many of the offerings from the previous year
and made the decision to offer only a minimal number of items in the hope of increasing
the student participation in the NSLP meals. Items such as cheeseburgers, pizza,
corndogs, donuts, and chips were replaced with cereal and granola bars, baked chips,
graham crackers, and peanuts. The department did see a significant decline in a la carte
sales during the model policy implementation period.
Vending machines were minimal at Sierra Middle School prior to the implementation
period. Only beverage machines were available to students. The distributor was unable to
reconfigure the vending machine to dispense 12 ounce Gatorade containers. Therefore, a
timer was placed on the machine restricting access during school hours. Two machines
offered water and the remaining machine offered juice. The school wanted to add a
healthy snack machine but was unable to find a distributor in the area able to comply with
the nutrition standards. Vending sales more then doubled during the model policy
implementation period.
Sierra Middle School is very happy they participated in the Team Nutrition Mini-grant.
They feel the opportunity gave them a great starting point when developing their
7

district’s Local Wellness Policy. A common response to concerns brought up in wellness
policy meetings was “we are already doing it at Sierra.” The school is planning more
changes for next school year. They are expanding the lunch period to three forty-five
minute periods. This will allow more time for school physical education teachers to offer
open gymnasium activities and to begin intramural sport activities during lunch periods.
Sierra also plans to add outdoor obstacle course equipment next school year. Working in
collaboration with the YMCA, after school hours Sierra Middle School will become a
Community Fitness Center. The school will open its doors to allow the community to
utilize the school’s physical activity facilities.
Cesar Chavez High School- The motivated administration at Cesar Chavez High School
set out to improve the food choices for the students at their school. Prior to implementing
the model policy, carbonated beverages and foods of minimal nutritional value were
available throughout the school day through many different venues such as vending
machines, DECA school store, and the JROTC store. The administration removed the
option of carbonated beverages and foods of low nutritional value from campus vending
machines, a la carte lines, and school stores for the entire day. When students returned to
school after the summer break, gone were the sodas, candy bars, large packets of cookies,
and what seemed to be an endless supply of Flamin Hot Cheetos. In their place were
baked chips, cereal and granola bars, pretzels, jerky, and nuts and seeds.
The Food Service Department made positive changes as well. Recipes were adjusted to
reduce calorie and fat content. Sides of baked beans and pasta salad replaced French fries.
Fried French fries were replaced with baked fries and the department limited the number
of days French fries were offered as part of their NSLP meal. A la carte lines used to
offer students a variety of candy bars, chips, large portions of French fries, and a 625
calorie, 27 grams of fat personal pan pizza. The a la carte lines inside the cafeteria were
changed to only offering NSLP meals, leaving only the outside a la carte line available.
The personal pan pizzas were replaced with sub sandwiches and homemade burritos. To
the Food Service Manager’s surprise and delight, the sub sandwiches and homemade
burritos were more profitable than the personal pan pizzas.
The Food Service Department also implemented a Universal Free Breakfast Program at
Cesar Chavez High School. The program offers a free breakfast to all enrolled students
which resulted in a significant increase in breakfast meals served. Due to the success of
the Universal Free Breakfast Program, the school district implemented the program in all
of their schools. In addition to the breakfast program the Phoenix Union High School, the
District Superintendent implemented the Team Nutrition Grant Nutrition Standards
throughout the district.

Cesar Chavez High School did experience a decrease in vending machine revenue during
the implementation period. Generally, student clubs were the beneficiary of funds
generated from vending machines. With the removal of soda and electrolyte beverage
machines, school administration was limited in their ability to distribute funds to some of
the smaller student clubs on campus. The school administration is looking at other
possibilities to help fund student clubs. The Administration believes by offering a greater
8

variety of items that meet the nutrition standards vending revenue will increase. This may
prove easier in the near future as food manufacturers are developing healthier food and
beverage products to be offered in schools. They are also researching the possibility of
purchasing or leasing their own vending machine. An Assistant Principal is hoping to see
student clubs become more creative in their fundraising ability by offering non-food
items as seen in other student groups who purchased a helium tank and sold birthday
balloons. Another club sold t-shirts customized at the student’s request. There were some
growing pains during the model policy implementation period but the school is
determined to continue with their efforts.
Both the Food Service Department and the School Administration were pleased to
participate in the Team Nutrition Mini-grant. The Food Service Department experienced
an increase in NSLP and SBP meal participation and was able to stay in the black with
their food service budget while offering healthier foods and beverages through a la carte
lines. The School Administration was happy to see more students eating meals. An
Assistant Principal at the high school stated “it was nice to see that the longest lunch line
is no longer the line in front of the chip machine.” He believes good changes have
occurred on campus. Students are eating more fresh fruit and some are beginning to ask
questions about the foods and beverages they are consuming. The school had to add an
additional Lifetime Sports class session during the spring semester due to an increase in
popularity. Even the staff/faculty is getting involved. After some initial complaints, the
staff/faculty requested healthier selections to be available in the faculty cafeteria and
about thirty teachers participated in a weight loss contest.
Nutritional Analysis
The ADE grant coordinator visited and met with officials of each mini-grant recipient
school during the spring of 2005. During the meetings the grant coordinator discussed the
Team Nutrition Grant Nutrition Standards in detail. School officials had the opportunity
to have any questions answered and to present any additional plans for the model policy
implementation period. During the school visits the ADE grant coordinator collected
information on all foods and beverages sold during the school day at the time of the visit.
This included items sold in vending machines, a la carte lines, snack bars, and school
stores.
The ADE grant coordinator provided each school with a detailed nutritional analysis of
the school’s lunch program meals and all other foods and beverages sold on campus
(vending, a la carte, snack bar, school stores). A summary was provided outlining the
foods and beverages that did not meet the nutrition standards. Although improving
program meals was not a requirement of the mini-grant, recommendations on how to
improve the lunch program meals were provided. To help the schools find foods and
beverages that met the nutrition standards the grant coordinator provided extensive but
not all-inclusive lists of food and beverage items which met the nutrition standards for
consideration.

9

Thunder Mountain Middle School (TMMS)
Table 1. TMMS beverage analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
Total Fat (g)
Saturated Fat (g)

Pre Implementation
201
6
124
0
0
100
42
17.17
2.87
45.92
1.25
0.75

Post Implementation
104
11
144
0
0
200
84
5.85
5.75
14.75
2.5
1.5

250
200
150
100
50
0

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e alo
st
e rie
So rol s
d i (m
um g)
(
Fi mg
be )
Ir r (g
C on )
al
(m
Vi ciu g)
ta m
m (
Vi in mg
ta A )
m (R
in
E
C )
C P
(
m
ar ro
bo te g)
hy i n
dr (g)
a
T
Sa ot te (
g
t u al
ra Fa )
te t
d (g)
Fa
t(
g)

Level

Chart 1. TMMS beverage analysis pre and post implementation

Nutrients

10

Thunder Mountain Middle School continued

Table 2. TMMS A la carte analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
268
16
353
1.56
1.04
57.9
35
0.4
5.97
36.7
36.95
12.86

Post Implementation
170
12
394
1.98
1.57
107.28
345
12.35
6.49
29.17
18.9
5.75

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e alo
r
st
e ies
So rol
d i (m
um g)
(m
Fi
g
be )
r(
Ir
g
C on )
al
(
m
Vi cium g)
ta
m (m
Vi i n
g
ta A )
m (R
in
E
C )
C Pr (m
ar
bo ote g)
hy i n
dr (g)
a
% te
%
To (g)
Sa ta
tu l F
ra
te at
d
Fa
t

Level

Chart 2. TMMS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation

Nutrients

11

Thunder Mountain Middle School continued
Table 3. TMMS lunch program meals analysis pre and post
implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
1040
39
2026
10.66
6.48
1847.89
1113
213.2
35.64
168.72
22.94
5.55

Post Implementation
812
53
1111
10.27
4.83
505.83
854
119.76
32.07
119.26
27.88
8.43

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e alor
st
er ies
So ol (
d i mg
um )
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi in A g)
ta
m (R
in
E
C )
C Pr (m
ar
g
o
bo tei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te (
g)
%
T
Sa ota
l
tu
ra Fa
te t
d
Fa
t

Level

Chart 3. TMMS lunch program meals analysis pre and post implementation

Nutrients

12

Mile High Middle School (MHMS)

Table 4. MHMS beverage analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
Total Fat (g)
Saturated Fat (g)

Pre Implementation
165
2
96
0.03
0.03
26.65
19
19.3
0.62
42.52
0.48
0.03

Post Implementation
52
2
92
0.11
0.06
57.08
67
6.75
1.48
10.53
0.44
0.28

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
le alor
st
er ies
So ol (
d i mg
um )
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi in A g)
ta
m (R
in
E
C )
(
P
m
C
g
ar rot
bo ei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
To te
Sa
(g
ta
tu l F )
ra
at
te
d (g)
Fa
t(
g)

Level

Chart 4. MHMS beverage analysis pre and post implementation

Nutrients

13

Mile High Middle School continued

Table 5. MHMS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
250
10
344
1.15
1.57
42.19
23
0.96
4.47
36.64
34.53
12.3

Post Implementation
160
6
330
1.21
1.56
12.6
76
7.07
6.31
24.62
23.01
6.73

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
le al or
st
er i es
So ol (
d i mg
um )
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi in A g)
ta
m (R
in
E
C )
C Pr (m
ar
g
o
bo tei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te (
%
g
T
Sa ota )
l
tu
ra Fa
te t
d
Fa
t

Level

Chart 5. MHMS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation

Nutrients

14

Mile High Middle School continued

Table 6. MHMS lunch program meals analysis pre and post
implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
848
48
2011
9.93
5.21
459.35
379
32.86
29.52
115.01
32.37
10.13

Post Implementation
643
31
1483
8.52
4.25
319.15
967
26.42
24.55
90.41
28.47
8.11

Chart 6. MHMS lunch program meals analysis pre and post implementation

2500

Level

2000
1500
Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

1000
500

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
al
le
or
st
i
er es
o
So l (
d i mg
um )
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
m
c
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi i n A g)
ta
m (RE
in
C )
C Pr (mg
ar
o
bo tei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te (
g)
%
T
Sa ota
l
tu
ra Fat
te
d
Fa
t

0

Nutrients

15

Sierra Middle School (SMS)

Table 7. SMS beverage analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
Total Fat (g)
Saturated Fat (g)

Pre Implementation
198
0
125
0
0
4.22
0
60.5
0.11
51.24
0
0

Post Implementation
133
3
85
0
0.08
81.85
78
49.94
2.22
30.08
0.58
0.35

Chart 7. SMS beverage analysis pre and post implementation
250

Level

200
150
100

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

50

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e al o
r
st
er i es
o
So l (
di mg
um )
(
Fi mg
be )
r
Iro (g)
n
C
(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi i n A g)
ta
m (R
E
in
C )
(
P
C
ar ro m g
)
bo te
i
hy n
dr (g)
T at
Sa ota e (g
tu l F )
ra
a
te t (
g
d
Fa )
t(
g)

0

Nutrients

16

Sierra Middle School continued

Table 8. SMS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
262
15
319
1.39
1.09
60.23
29
1.81
6.34
33.35
39.2
12.84

Post Implementation
135
0
154
1.44
0.8
81.94
55
0.6
2.41
21.82
30.61
5.51

Chart 8. SMS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation

350
300
Level

250
200
150

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

100
50
Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e alor
st
er ies
So ol (
d i mg
um )
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi in A g)
ta
m (R
in
E
C )
C Pr (m
ar
g
o
bo tei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te (
%
To g)
Sa ta
tu l F
ra
a
te t
d
Fa
t

0

Nutrients

17

Sierra Middle School continued

Table 9. SMS lunch program meals analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
769
68
969
5.83
4.4
638.2
234
41.94
29.63
93.55
35.13
11.92

Post Implementation
826
63
1387
7.84
5.48
635.98
528
73.48
34.59
112.01
29.97
9.7

Chart 9. SMS lunch program meals analysis pre and post implementation
1600
1400

Level

1200
1000
800
600

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

400
200
Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
al
or
le
i
st
er es
So ol (
d i mg
um )
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi in A g)
ta
m (R
in
E
C )
(
m
C Pr
g
ar
o
bo tei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te (
g)
%
T
Sa ota
tu l F
ra
a
te t
d
Fa
t

0

Nutrients

18

Cesar Chavez High School (CCHS)

Table 10. CCHS beverage analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
198
0
125
0
0
4.22
0
60.5
0.11
51.24
0
0

Post Implementation
133
3
85
0
0.08
81.85
78
49.94
2.22
30.08
0.58
0.35

Chart 10. CCHS beverage analysis pre and post implementation
250

Level

200
150
100

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

50

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e al o
r
st
er i es
o
So l (
di mg
um )
(
Fi mg
be )
r
Iro (g)
n
C
(
al
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi i n A g)
ta
m (R
E
in
C )
(
P
C
ar ro m g
)
bo te
i
hy n
dr (g)
T at
Sa ota e (g
tu l F )
ra
a
te t (
g
d
Fa )
t(
g)

0

Nutrients

19

Cesar Chavez High School continued

Table 11. CCHS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
274
5
249
1.57
0.5
44.62
23
2.26
4.43
31.15
48.49
17.69

Post Implementation
166
13
367
1.99
4.94
56.73
92
5.87
6.33
26.01
24
6.14

Chart 11. CCHS a la carte analysis pre and post implementation
400
350

Level

300
250
200
150

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

100
50

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e al o
r
st
er i es
So ol (
di mg
um )
(m
Fi
g
be )
r(
g
Ir
C on )
al
(
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi i n A g)
ta
m (R
E
in
C )
Pr (m
C
ar
o
bo tei g)
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te
%
To (g)
Sa
t
tu al F
ra
te at
d
Fa
t

0

Nutrients

20

Cesar Chavez High School continued

Table 12. CCHS vending snacks analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
220
5
246
1.18
0.63
26.5
7
0.3
3.98
27.64
43.3
13.07

Post Implementation
144
3
249
1.2
0.82
42.95
62
1.85
4.44
21.09
32.12
5.73

Chart 12. CCHS vending snacks analysis pre and post implementation

300

200
150

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

100
50
0

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
le al o
r
st
e i es
So rol
d i (m
um g)
(
Fi mg
be )
r
Ir (g
C on )
al
(m
Vi ciu m g)
ta
m (m
Vi in
g
ta A )
m (R
in
E
C )
C P
(m
ar ro
bo te g)
hy in
dr (g)
a
% te
%
To (g)
Sa ta
tu l F
ra
te at
d
Fa
t

Level

250

Nutrients

21

Cesar Chavez High School continued

Table 13. CCHS JROTC snack analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
201
3
205
1.14
0.79
50.16
29
1.36
2.79
30.11
35.43
12.31

Post Implementation
155
0
171
1.48
0.7
52.11
65
0.96
2.6
27.68
24.25
3.78

Chart 13. CCHS JROTC snack analysis pre and post implementation

250

150

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

100
50
0

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e alor
st
er ies
So ol
d i (m
um g)
(m
g
Fi
be )
r(
Iro g)
C n(
al
m
Vi cium g)
ta
m (m
Vi i n A g)
ta
m (R
in
E
C )
(
m
C Pr
ar
g
o
bo tei )
hy n (
dr g)
a
% te (
%
To g)
Sa ta
tu l F
ra
a
te t
d
Fa
t

Level

200

Nutrients

22

Cesar Chavez High School continued

Table 14. CCHS DECA snack analysis pre and post implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
297
3
272
1.02
0.55
23.8
15
2.22
3.95
34.16
45.05
13.31

Post Implementation
139
7
342
1.5
1.01
53.33
43
0.23
7.42
17.95
29.49
3.71

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e alo
st
e rie
So rol s
d i (m
um g
)
(
Fi mg
be )
Iro r (g
C n )
a
(m
Vi l ciu g)
ta m
m (
Vi i n mg
ta A )
m (R
in
E
C )
C P
ar ro (mg
bo te
)
hy i n
dr (g)
at
% % T e (g
Sa ot
)
tu al F
ra
te at
d
Fa
t

Level

Chart 14. CCHS DECA snack analysis pre and post implementation

Nutrients

23

Cesar Chavez High School continued

Table 15. CCHS lunch program meal analysis pre and post
implementation
Average Calories
Cholesterol (mg)
Sodium (mg)
Fiber (g)
Iron (mg)
Calcium (mg)
Vitamin A (RE)
Vitamin C (mg)
Protein (g)
Carbohydrate (g)
% Total Fat
% Saturated Fat

Pre Implementation
776
52
1205
10.77
5.09
461.17
369
22.87
32.04
97.81
34
13.22

Post Implementation
626
45
1162
9.85
3.88
490.8
503
23.44
29.25
86.45
28.4
11.81

Chart 15. CCHS lunch program meal analysis pre and post implementation
1400
1200

800
600

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

400
200
0

Av
er
ag
C eC
ho
l e al o
st
er ri es
So ol
d i (m
um g)
(
Fi mg
be )
r(
Ir
g
C on )
al
(
c m
Vi iu m g)
ta
m (m
g
Vi i n
ta A )
m (R
in
E
C )
C
(m
P
ar ro
bo te g)
hy i n
dr (g)
a
% te
%
To (g)
Sa
t
tu al F
ra
te at
d
Fa
t

Level

1000

Nutrients

24

Chart 16a. Average calorie content of all beverages and foods sold on campus

1200

1040

1000
812
800

Beverage and
Snack Goal:
300 Calories or
Less

600
400

268

201

170

104

200
0

Beverages Calories

A la carte Calories

Progam Meal
Calories

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Thunder Mountain
Middle School

848

900
800

643

700
600

Beverage and
Snack Goal:
300 Calories or
Less

500
400
300
200
100

250
165

160
52

0
Beverages
Calories

A la carte
Calories

ProgamMeal
Calories

Mile High Middle
School

25

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Chart 16b. Average calorie content of all beverages and foods sold on campus

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

826

769
Beverage and
Snack Goal:
300 Calories or
Less

198

262
133

135

Beverages
Calories

A la carte
Calories

Progam Meal
Calories

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Sierra Middle
School

900
776

800
700

626

Beverage and
Snack Goal:
300 Calories or
Less

600
500
400
300
200

279

274
195
128

220

201

166

144

155

139

A la carte
Calories

Vending
Calories

JROTC
Calories

DECA
Calories

100
0
Beverages
Calories

Cesar Chavez
High School

26

Program
Meal
Calories

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

Chart 17. Percent total fat and saturated fat calories – Lunch Program Meals
Goal for Total Fat Calories: 30% or Less of Total Calories
Goal for Saturated Fat: 10% or Less of Total Calories
27.88

30

35 32.27
28.47
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
% Calories
from Fat

25 22.94
20
15
8.43

10

5.55

5
0
% Calories
from Fat

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

Thunder Mountain
Middle School

40 35.13
29.97
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
% Calories
from Fat

11.92

8.11

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

Mile High
Middle School

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

9.7

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

10.13

34
28.4

13.22 11.81

% Calories
from Fat

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

Sierra Middle
School

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Cesar Chavez
High School

27

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

Chart 18. Percent total fat and saturated fat calories – Middle Schools A La Carte Snacks
Goal for Total Fat Calories: 30% or Less of Total Calories
Goal for Saturated Fat: 10% or Less of Total Calories
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

3 6 .9 5

1 8 .9
1 2 .8 6
5 .7 5

%
C a lo r ie s
f ro m Fa t

%
C a lo r ie s
from
S a t. F a t

Pr e
Im p le m e n t a t in
Po s t
Im p le m e n t a t io n

Thunder Mountain
Middle School
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

3 4 .5 3
2 3 .0 1
1 2 .3
6 .7 3

% C a lo r ie s
f rom Fat

% C a lo r ie s
f r o m S a t.
Fat

Pr e
Im p le m e n t a t in
Po s t
Im p le m e n t a t io n

Mile High Middle
School
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

3 9 .2
3 0 .6 1

1 2 .8 4
5 .5 1

% C a lo r ie s
f rom Fat

% C a lo r ie s
f r o m S a t.
Fa t

Sierra Middle
School

28

Pr e
Im p le m e n t a t in
Po s t
Im p le m e n t a t io n

Chart 19. Percent total fat and saturated fat calories – High School A La Carte, Vending, and School
Store Snacks
Goal for Total Fat Calories: 30% or Less of Total Calories
Goal for Saturated Fat: 10% or Less of Total Calories

60

50 43.3

48.49

50

40

40
30

30

24
17.69

20

32.12

20

6.14

10

13.07
5.73

10

0

0

% Calories
from Fat

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

% Calories
from Fat

Cesar Chavez High School
A la carte

40 35.43
35
30
24.25
25
20
15
10
5
0
% Calories
from Fat

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

Cesar Chavez High School
Vending

50 45.05
40

29.49

30

12.31

20

3.78

13.31

10

3.71

0

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Pre
Implementatin

% Calories
from Fat

Post
Implementation

Cesar Chavez High School
JROTC Store

% Calories
from Sat.
Fat

Pre
Implementatin
Post
Implementation

Cesar Chavez High School
DECA Store

29

Chart 20. Average fiber content of food snack items – Middle School A La Carte
2.5
1.98
2
1.56

1.44

1.39

1.5
1.15

1.21

Pre
Post

1

0.5

0
TMMS Fiber Grams: A la
carte Snacks

MHMS Fiber Grams: A la
carte Snacks

SMS Fiber Grams: A la
carte Snacks

Chart 21. Average fiber content of food snack items – Cesar Chavez High School
2.5
1.99
2
1.57

1.5

1.48

1.5
1.18

1.2

1.14

Pre
1.02

1

0.5

0
Fiber Grams A la
carte

Fiber Grams
Vending

Fiber Grams
JROTC

30

Fiber Grams
DECA

Post

Chart 22. Micronutrient content averages- Middle School A La Carte Foods

Thunder Mountain Middle School
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

394
353

345
Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

107.28
57.9
1.04
Sodium (mg) Calcium (mg)

1.57

Iron (mg)

35

0.4

Vitamin A
(RE)

12.35

Vitamin C
(mg)

Mile High Middle School
120
100

96

92

80
57.08

60
40

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

67

26.65

19

20

1.57

19.3
6.75

1.56

0
Sodium (mg) Calcium (mg)

Iron (mg)

Vitamin A
(RE)

Vitamin C
(mg)

Sierra Middle School
350

319

300
250
200

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

154

150
100

60.23

81.94

50

1.09

0.8

29

55
1.81

0.6

0
Sodium (mg) Calcium (mg)

Iron (mg)

Vitamin A
(RE)

31

Vitamin C
(mg)

Chart 23. Micronutrient content averages- Cesar Chavez High School

CCHS Vending

CCHS A la carte
400

300

367

246 249

350
300

250

249

250

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

200
150

92

56.73
44.62

100
50

0.5 4.94

150
100

Iron
(mg)

Sodium Calcium
(mg)
(mg)

Vitamin Vitamin
A (RE) C (mg)

400

250
205

50

Vitamin Vitamin
A (RE) C (mg)

300 272

171
Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

65

52.11
50.16
0.79

0.7

0
Sodium Calcium
(mg)
(mg)

Iron
(mg)

342

350

150
100

0.3 1.85

CCHS DECA

CCHS JROTC

200

62

0

0
Sodium Calcium
(mg)
(mg)

42.95
26.5
0.82 7
0.63

50

5.87
2.26

23

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

200

Iron
(mg)

250

150
100

29
1.36

Pre
Implementation
Post
Implementation

200

50

0.96

0

53.33
43
23.8
1.01 15
2.22
0.55
0.23
Sodium Calcium
(mg)
(mg)

Vitamin Vitamin
A (RE) C (mg)

32

Iron
(mg)

Vitamin Vitamin
A (RE) C (mg)

Financial Analysis
The ADE grant coordinater collected financial data for both the pre-implementation and
implementation time periods from all four participating schools. The baseline financial
information collected represent the monthly financial information for the months of
August through December during the fall semester of the 2004-2005 school year.
Comparsion data was then collected on a monthly basis for the months of August through
December for the fall semester of the 2005-2006 school year.
The financial analysis was conducted by Arizona State University (ASU) through an
Interagency Service Agreement between Arizona State University and the Arizona
Department of Education.

Pre and Post Model Policy Implementation School Data

Enrollment
Average
Breakfast/Day
% Participation
Average
Lunch/Day
% Participation

Thunder
Mountain Middle
School
Pre
Post
772
796

Cesar Chavez
High School

Mile High
Middle School

Sierra Middle
School

Pre
2669

Post
2770

Pre
589

Post
636

Pre
1125

Post
1029

231
8.6%

312
11.3%

55
9.3%

62
9.7%

187
16.7%

175
17.0%

32
4.0%

59
7.4%

989
37.0%

1417
51.0%

228
39.0%

268
42.0%

740
66.0%

668
65.0%

219
28.4%

191
24.0%

Enrollment reflects school’s 40th day counts from the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years.
Average meals taken from the September National School Lunch Claim from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006
school years.

33

Chart 24. Overall food sales – all mini-grant schools

Mile High Middle School

Thunder Mountain Middle School
60,000

50,000

50,000

40,000

40,000

30,000

30,000
20,000

20,000

10,000

10,000
0

Breakfast Breakfasts Lunches
Served
Profit
Served

Lunches
Profit

A la Carte A la Carte
Sales
Profit

Vending
Profit

0

Children
Breakfasts

Children
Lunches

Total
Program

A la Carte A la Carte
Revenue
Profit

Vending
Revenue

Vending
Profit

Pre

2,845

$688.60

17,406

$7,556.05 $47,893.00 $4,373.37

$893.73

Pre

4,440

18,937

$12,720.38 $41,131.07 $14,984.78 $1,223.27 $1,223.27

Post

4,440

$1,404.14

18,461

$9,729.73 $50,852.00 $1,890.38

$761.08

Post

4,988

22,624

$24,610.42 $33,978.85 $10,721.36 $1,398.40 $1,398.40

Sierra Middle School

Cesar Chavez High School
$150,000.00

250,000
200,000

$100,000.00

150,000
100,000

$50,000.00

50,000
0

Breakfasts Breakfasts Lunches
Served
Profit
Served

Lunches
Income

A la Carte
Revenue

$0.00

Vending Total Other
Profit
Food Profit

Children
Breakfasts Profit

Children Lunches
Income

A la Carte
Revenue

Vending Profit

Pre

19,233

$53,882

74,884

$150,731 $126,969.6

$6,059

$6,096.00

Pre

$4,289.23

$136,887

$19,331.60

$1,167

Post

22,802

$21,254.50

107,592

$213,107 $64,310.65

$4,295

$2,045.00

Post

$10,665

$125,845

$8,171

$2,540

Vending: All Schools
$7,000.00
$6,059
$6,096.00
$6,000.00
$4,295
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,540
$3,000.00
$2,045.00
$1,398.40
$2,000.00 $1,223.27
$1,167
$893.73 $761.08
$1,000.00
$0.00
Mile High
Sierra Vending
Thunder
Cesar Chavez Cesar Chavez
Vending
Mountain
Vending
JROTC/DECA
Vending
Stores

34

Pre
Post

Chart 25. A la carte revenue month-to-month comparison- all mini-grant schools
\\

Pre
Post

TMMS: A La Carte Revenue
$14,000
$12,194.00 $12,788.00
$12,000
$10,091.00 $9,841.00
$12,708.00
$10,000
$9,939.00 $5,938.00
$8,000 $9,585.00
$9,246.00
$6,000
$6,415.00
$4,000
$2,000
$0
August September October November December

$9,715.00

$10,623.00

$10,000

$8,278.00
$6,514.00

$8,000
$6,000

$7,398.00

$6,001.00

$8,180.00
$6,846.00

$4,000

$5,470.00

$6,082.00

$2,000
$0
August

September

October

November December

CCHS: A La Carte Revenue

Pre

SMS: A La Carte Revenue

Pre
Post

MHMS: A La Carte Revenue
$12,000

Post

Post
$5,000
$4,000

$40,000

$4,501.00 $4,741.00 $4,703.00

$34,567.00
$30,000

$3,832.00

$3,000
$2,018.00 $2,140.00 $1,983.00

$2,000
$1,000

$934.00

$20,000
$1,554.00
$1,096.00

$29,635.00
$17,426.00 $16,682.00

$10,000

$26,920.00
$21,488.00
$9,159.00

$12,391.00 $14,361.00
$8,653.00

$0

$0
August

September October

Pre

August

November December

35

September October November December

Chart 26. Thunder Mountain Middle School financial results month-to-month comparison –
program meals

Pre
Post

TMMS: # Breakfasts Served
1,200
1,000

4000

1,179

1,071

800
600
400
200

4370

840

0

September

October

$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0

$477.00

$43.00

$48.00

$11.00
August September

$152.00

$163.00
$80.00

$87.00 $124.00
October

November December

December

Pre
Post

$2,273.00

$2,037.00

$2,372.00

$2,069.00

$1,687.00

$1,936.00

$1,364.00

$1,100.00

Pre
Post

September

October

$3,489.00

November December

Pre
Post

TMMS: Lunch Reimbursements
$10,000

$1,415.00

$806.00

November

$3,115.00

August

TMMS: Breakfast Reimbursements

$770.00

October

TMMS: Lunch Revenue

Pre
Post

$600
$500
$400
$202.00

September

November December

TMMS: Breakfast Revenue

$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0

2618

August

A ugust

3937

4023

3418

1000

0

$300
$200
$100
$0

3819

2886

2000

472

343

4174

3509

3113

3000

796

740
589

645

610

Pre
Post

TMMS: # Lunches Served
5000

1,400

$1,310.00
$893.00
$736.00

$984.00

$6,029.00

$6,000

$4,826.00
$4,238.00

$4,000

$574.00

$442.00

$8,256.00

$8,000

$1,010.00

$6,637.00
$5,044.00
$5,851.00

$5,926.00

$5,062.00

$4,298.00

$2,000
$0

August

September

October

August

November December

September

$5,552.00
$5,441.00
$5,167.00
$5,104.00
$4,941.00
$4,440.00
$4,425.00
$4,080.00
$3,327.00
$4,000 $3,529.00
$6,000

Cost/Meal

$5,000

Pre

$3,000

Post

$2,000
$1,000
$0
September

October

November

89% 84%

$1.10
$1.08
$1.06
$1.04
$1.02
$1.00
$0.98
$0.96
$0.94

September

Pre
Post

$10,000

$6,000
$4,000

$7,989.00
$6,436.00

$7,552.00

$7,465.00

$7,310.00

$6,397.00
$5,363.00

$4,866.00

$2,000
$0
August

September

October

36

November

85%

83%

82%

Pre

August

$7,847.00

86% 82%

Post

76%

TMMS: Total Costs

$6,228.00

% = % Meals as Lunch
87%

80%

December

$8,000

November December

TMMS: Meal Cost per Meal

TMMS: Monthly Meal Costs (Breakfast and Lunch)

August

October

December

October

November

December

Chart 27. Mile High Middle School financial results month-to-month comparison – program meals
Pre
Post

MHMS: # Breakfasts Served
1,400

1,306
1,152

1,200
1,000
800
600

6,000
1,026
965

934
875

809

4,000

4,146

586

4,586
4,190

3,678
3,072

3,000

2,732

1,000

200

0

0
August

September

October

August

November December

$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0

$1,674.00
$1,425.00 $1,457.00
$1,117.00
$781.00

$709.00

$423.00
$297.00
$303.00

$500
$286.00
$0
August

September

October

November December

$3,624.00

$3,848.00 $3,937.00
$2,668.00

$4,601.00
$3,320.00
$2,218.00

$1,878.00

August

September

Pre
Post

October

$1,475.00

November December

Pre
Post

MHMS: Lunch Reimbursements

$2,000

$8,000
$7,032.00

$1,500

$6,000

$1,472.00

$5,516.00

$1,223.00 $1,258.00

$729.00

$884.00

$912.00

$5,506.00

$4,784.00

$4,000

$1,006.00

$804.00
$1,058.00

$500

Pre
Post

$6,368.00

November December

MHMS: Breakfast Reimbursements

October

MHMS: Lunch Revenue

$2,000

$1,000

September

Pre
Post

MHMS: Breakfast Revenue

$1,000

4,229

2,000

400

$1,500

5,625
4,797

4,506

5,000

1,053

728

Pre
Post

MHMS: # Lunches Served

$4,755.00

$5,870.00
$5,327.00
$3,627.00
$3,160.00

$3,931.00

$2,000

$584.00
$0

$0
August

September

October

August

November December

September

$6,502.00

84%

$5,076.00
$4,463.00

$3,628.00
$3,461.00
$3,055.00

$3,046.00

$3,000

86%

82%

82%

80%

$0.80
Cost/Meal

$4,460.00
$5,000 $4,213.00
$3,903.00
$4,000

% = % Meals as Lunch
81%
77% 81%

$1.00

$6,000

November December

Mile High: Meal Cost per Meal

Mile High: Monthly Meal Costs (Breakfast and Lunch)
$7,000

October

Pre
Post

$2,000

81%

81%

$0.60

Pre
Post

$0.40
$0.20

$1,000
$0

$0.00
August

September

October

November

December

August

Pre
Post

MHMS: Total Costs
$12,000
$10,000

$9,976.00
$7,606.00

$8,007.00

$8,000
$6,000

$5,904.00
$7,282.00

$6,547.00

$7,295.00
$6,045.00

$4,000

$5,941.00 $5,484.00

$2,000
$0
August

September

October

37

September

November December

October

November

December

Chart 28. Sierra Middle School financial results month-to-month comparison – program meals

Pre

SMS: # Breakfasts Served
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000

4,511

3,925

15,537
14,026

15,000
10,635

2,893

14,334
12,793

13,003
11,473

10,000

2,499
1,956

2,031

Post

20,000

4,319
3,753

3,628

3,683

Pre

SMS: # Lunches Served

Post

8,193
6,310

9,334
5,000

1,000
0

0
August

September

October

August

November December

September

Pre

SMS: Breakfast Revenue

October

November December

Pre

SMS: Lunch Revenue

Post

Post

$250

$4,000
$213.00

$200

$3,000

$150
$100
$50

$2,000

$134.00
$107.00

$91.00

$122.00

$2,989.00

$3,324.00 $3,009.00

$2,850.00
$2,441.00

$1,642.00

$2,151.00

$1,000

$35.00

$1,248.00

$55.00

$0

$0
August

September

October

November December

August

$5,426.00
$5,278.00
$4,157.00
$2,860.00

August

$6,171.00

$3,470.00

$30,760.00 $28,614.00
$26,123.00
$21,584.00 $28,483.00
$26,122.00 $23,561.00
$18,989.00

August

September

SMS: Monthly Meal Costs (Breakfast and Lunch)

Cost/Meal

$2.00

November December

Pre
Post

% = % Meals as Lunch
82%

79%

80%

$1.50

76%
79%

75%
78%

75%

$1.00

77%

76%

$0.50
$0.00
August

September

Pre

SMS: Total Costs

Post
$50,000
$35,749.00 $38,189.00
$32,708.00 $33,675.00 $30,995.00
$28,484.00
$26,305.00
$23,613.00
$23,199.00

$10,000

$8,890.00

$0
August

October

$16,531.00
$13,085.00

SMS: Meal Cost per Meal

$35,000
$30,160.00
$27,553.00
$30,000
$24,289.00
$22,057.00
$20,933.00
$25,000
$19,285.00
$19,842.00
$16,286.00
$20,000
$15,000
$8,425.00
$10,000
$7,024.00
$5,000
$0
August
September
October
November
December

$20,000

Pre
Post

$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0

September October November December

$30,000

November December

SMS: Lunch Reimbursements

$2,801.00

$40,000

October

Post

$6,047.00

$5,212.00 $5,364.00

September

Pre

SMS: Breakfast Reimbursements
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0

$2,926.00

$148.00

$145.00
$115.00

$3,406.00

September

October

November December

38

October

November

December

Pre
Post

Chart 29. Cesar Chavez High School financial results month-to-month comparison – program meals

7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

CCHS: # Breakfasts Served

Pre

6,244

Post

Post

5,366

30,000
25,000

3,815

3,858

3,519

20,000

5,106

4,619

15,000

3,739

3,202

2,567

Pre

CCHS: # Lunches Served
28,334
23,351

22,285

19,782

18,051

16,446
13,188

13,898

17,156

10,000

9,965

5,000
0

August

September

October

November December

August

September

Pre

CCHS: Breakfast Revenue

October

November December

CCHS: Lunch Revenue

Pre

Post
$2,500

$1,500
$1,000

Post
$20,000

$2,248.00

$2,000

$1,730.00 $1,826.00

$1,738.00
$1,095.00

$924.00
$570.00

$500
September

October

$13,512.00

$720.00

$5,000
$335.00

$0

$9,279.00
$5,959.00 $6,673.00
August

November December

$9,445.00

$4,550.00 $5,544.00

September

Pre

CCHS: Breakfast Reimbursements

$12,575.00

$10,000

$0
August

$15,830.00

$15,000
$1,151.00

October

$3,105.00

November December

Pre

CCHS: Lunch Reimbursements

Post
$8,000

$4,843.00
$5,661.00

$4,064.00
$4,000

$6,706.00

$5,995.00

$6,000
$3,261.00

Post
$40,443.00

$50,000

$6,815.00

$4,077.00

$34,051.00

$40,000 $29,968.00

$4,223.00

$33,222.00

$20,000

$4,072.00

$31,227.00
$21,999.00

$10,000 $21,294.00

$2,000

$24,681.00

$23,324.00

$30,000

$17,159.00

$0

$0
August

September

October

August

November December

September

October

November December

CCHS: Meal Cost per Meal

CCHS: Monthly Meal Costs (Breakfast and Lunch)
$2.50

$50,000

$38,576.00
$38,575.00
$34,380.00
$38,342.00
$40,000 $36,662.00
$32,892.00 $29,968.00
$25,769.00
$27,202.00
$27,991.00
$30,000

Pre

$20,000

Post

% = % Meals as Lunch
84%

76%

Cost/Meal

$2.00

$10,000

$1.50

78%

81%

86%

81%

82%

78%

82%
81%

$0.50

$0
August

September

October

November

$0.00

December

August

CCHS: Total Costs

September

Pre

Post
$70,000
$65,404.00 $64,054.00
$61,030.00
$60,000
$55,107.00
$50,000
$50,055.00
$61,538.00
$56,867.00
$56,453.00
$40,000
$49,164.00
$46,317.00
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
August September October November December

39

Pre
Post

$1.00

October

November

December

DISCUSSION
Nutrition
Although changes to program meals were not a requirement of the mini-grant, all
participating schools made positive changes to their lunch menu. As a result, three of the
four schools were able to decrease the total fat and saturated fat percentages of their
lunch meals. One school had an increase in total fat and saturated fat during the week of
analysis. However, both total fat and saturated fat remained below the School Meal
Initiative (SMI) nutrition standards of 30% or less of total calories from total fat and 10%
or less of total calories from saturated fat. (Refer to page 27, Chart 17)
The average calorie content of beverages sold on campus decreased significantly for all
four schools. The schools also experienced a significant decrease in the average calorie
content of all foods sold through a la carte, vending, and school stores. (Refer to pages
25, 26, Charts 16a & 16b)
All four schools made tremendous progress in decreasing the average percentages of total
fat and saturated fat of all foods sold through a la carte, vending, and school stores.
(Refer to pages 28, 29, Charts 18 & 19) The average fiber content of foods sold on
campus increased as well during the model policy implementation period. (Refer to page
30, Charts 20 & 21)
Due to a limitation of the nutrient analysis software utilized when analyzing the foods
sold on the campuses of the mini-grant schools, the percent weight from sugar
requirement of 35% or less is not included in the nutrient analysis. However, food items
were evaluated to ensure each item complied with the nutrition standard.
Each school made positive changes in the type of foods and beverages being sold on
campus and all four schools reported they will continue their effort in offering nutritious
foods and beverages to their students.
Financial
Thunder Mountain Middle School
Pre-implementation fiscal data (August-December 2004) was compared to postimplementation data (August-December 2005). (Refer to page 34, Chart 24)
Program Meals: Children’s Breakfasts
The number of breakfast meals served to children increased more than 50% from pre- to
post-implementation semesters (2,845 vs. 4,440). More importantly, profits more than
doubled during this same time period: $689 vs. $1,404 in the post-implementation phase.
Program Meals: Children’s Lunches
The number of children’s lunches served also increased over this time period, although
not to the same extent (17,406 vs. 18,461, an increase of less than 10%). Profits increased
almost 30%, from $7,556 to $9,729. The growth of profits far exceeded the growth in
number of meals served, thus the food selected and served under the Team Nutrition
Grant guidelines did not prove more costly to the school.
40

Meal Costs
The combined (breakfast plus lunch) food costs were generally higher in the postimplementation phase for every month of the fall semester with the exception of October,
where combined food costs pre- and post-implementation were identical. (Refer to page
36, Chart 26) When adjusted for the number of meals served, however, the cost-per-meal
was either lower or unchanged for every month of the post-implementation phase.
Again, this is strong evidence that implementation of Team Nutrition Grant guidelines
did not increase total or per-meal food costs. As noted on the “Cost per Meal” graph,
these reduced food expenditures cannot (with the possible exception of September) be
explained by the breakfast:lunch ratio. In other words, with the exception of September,
food costs in the post-implementation phase did not go down because the number of
breakfast meals increased significantly. In comparing the month-by-month pre- and postdata for each month other than September, the percent of meals served as lunches were
within three to five percentage points of each other.
Bottom Line: Sales of breakfast and lunch meals increased and reported profits increased
to an even greater extent. While the increase in the number of meals served may be due
to the modest enrollment growth, the critical factor of enhanced profit margins
demonstrated that Team Nutrition Grant guidelines could be put in place without
sacrificing the program’s financial status. The “cost-per-meal” data confirm this
conclusion: on a month-to-month basis, the cost associated with each meal served
declined or remained unchanged following the implementation of the guidelines.
A La Carte Sales
Overall, a la carte sales increased approximately 6% from $47,893 (pre-implementation)
to $50,852 (post-implementation). Due to a $4,000 increase in wages attributed to a la
carte sales, the profit realized from a la carte sales decreased from $4,373 to $1,890.
(Refer to page 34, Chart 24) Thus, sales remained strong after the implementation of
Team Nutrition Grant guidelines; students were not discouraged by the new selection of
foods. The wage increase can be attributed to the districts decision to increase the salary
of the kitchen staff and the addition of insurance for positions that were previously
uninsured.
Vending Sales
Vending sales at this school were very modest: $894 prior to implementation of Team
Nutrition Grant guidelines vs. $761 after new guidelines were in place. (Refer to page 34,
Chart 24) Only water machines were available to students during the school day and as
reported on page 9, there were times when one or more of the machines was not working
properly.
Bottom Line: The increase in sales of a la carte foods more than offset the small decline
in income from vending sales. While the profit realized from the a la carte sales
decreased during the evaluation period, the decline was attributed to increased wages not
increased food costs. The cost of the more healthful food choices after implementation of
41

the of Team Nutrition Grant guidelines was no greater than reported for the previous fall
semester.

Mile High Middle School
Pre-implementation fiscal data (August-December 2004) were compared to postimplementation data (August-December 2005). (Refer to page 34, Chart 24)
Program Meals: Children’s Breakfasts
As one might anticipate, the Team Nutrition Grant Project had little impact on breakfast
sales and profits. Vending and other food sales would not be expected to impact
students’ decision to consume breakfast. Both the number of meals served and the profit
from breakfast meals increased approximately 10%.
Program Meals: Children’s Lunches
As can be seen from the bar graphs, total profit from program meals (children’s
breakfasts and lunches) increased dramatically from fall semester 2004 to 2005 ($12,720
vs. $24,610). Profits were primarily from children’s lunches, they accounted for 63% of
the profit in 2004 and 81% of the profit in 2005. Total number of lunches served
increased 20%, well above the growth in breakfast meals and profits from children’s
meals increased 45%, also well above the growth noted for breakfast meals. Changes
made to lunch time offerings resulted in a dramatic increase in both sales and profits.
Meal Costs [Breakfast and Lunch]
It may be useful to isolate the cost of food alone [vs. previous reports of total meal costs,
which included labor expenses unrelated to Team Nutrition guidelines] to answer the
question “did program changes increase food costs?” While the post-implementation
combined meal costs were higher for each month of data, the cost per meal, which
accounts for changes in the number of meals served, shows no consistent increase in food
costs. Per meal food costs were lower for post-implementation months of October and
December, identical for August, and higher for the months of September and November.
(Refer to page 37, Chart 27) To further explore the issue of food costs pre and postimplementation, the ratio of breakfast to lunch meals was reported since breakfast meals
represent a lower food cost. As can be seen from the “Cost per Meal” graphs, lunch
meals represented 80-84% of total meals across all months, both pre- and postimplementation. Thus, in this school, it is unlikely that changes in breakfast:lunch ratios
accounted for differences in average cost-per-meal figures.
Bottom line: Lunch-time sales of program meals soared in the post-implementation
phase and accounted for the lion’s share of total program meal profits. Lunch-time
offerings were popular and profitable. It is possible that the removal of low-nutrient
foods motivated students to return to the lunch line! The “cost-per-meal”, which
excluded labor costs and accounted for breakfast:lunch ratios, did not increase following
the implementation of Team Nutrition guidelines, thus there is no indication that the
program imposed a financial burden in terms of the cost of food.

42

A La Carte Sales
As illustrated on the bar graph, total revenue dropped about 20% and profit from a la
carte sales decreased approximately 30%. (Refer to page 34 Chart 24) It is possible that
school personnel need to continue experimenting with a la carte offerings, while
remaining within Team Nutrition Grant guidelines, to maximize both sales and profits
over the coming year.
Vending Sales
Both revenue and profit remained unchanged with the implementation of Team Nutrition
Grant guidelines; in fact, they inched up from $1,223 (pre-implementation) to $1,398
(post-implementation). (Refer to page 34, Chart 24)
Bottom line: While a la carte sales and profits did decline, vending sales were not
negatively impacted by implementation of the Team Nutrition Grant guidelines. By
reviewing the successful items on the a la carte menu, sales and profits should be easily
increased to pre-implementation levels.
Sierra Middle School
Pre-implementation fiscal data (August-December 2004) were compared to postimplementation data (August-December 2005). (Refer to page 34, Chart 24) Due to
differences in fiscal reporting strategies, the data reported differ slightly from the format
used with other schools.
Program Meals: Children’s Breakfasts
The number of breakfast meals served to children decreased approximately 8% while
total income for these meals declined about 5%. There is no reason to believe that
changes implemented by the Team Nutrition Grant contributed to this decline however
the data serves as a useful point of comparison for other changes noted at Sierra Middle
School.
Program Meals: Children’s Lunches
Both the number of lunches served to students and the total income generated from
lunches served declined 8%. Since these data are in line with decreases noted for the
breakfast program, it is unlikely that the decrease can be attributed to changes made in
response to Team Nutrition Grant guidelines but rather attributed to the decrease in
school enrollment. No data for wages, meal costs, or indirect costs were reported, thus
no calculation of profit/loss from lunches could be made.
Meal Costs
The combined (breakfast plus lunch) food costs were significantly lower in the postimplementation phase for every month of the fall semester. (Refer to page 38, Chart 28)
When adjusted for the number of meals served, the cost-per-meal remained either lower
or unchanged for every month of the post-implementation phase. Again, this is strong
evidence that implementation of Team Nutrition Grant guidelines did not increase total or
per-meal food costs. As noted on the “Cost per Meal” graph, these reduced food
43

expenditures cannot be explained by the breakfast:lunch ratio. In other words, food costs
in the post-implementation phase did not go down because the number of breakfast meals
increased significantly. In comparing the month-by-month pre- and post-data, the
percentage of meals served as lunches were within three percentage points of each other.
Bottom Line: Both breakfast and lunch meals served declined by 8%; since changes in
vending and other food sales are unlikely to impact breakfast, it is not likely that these
declines were due to implementation of Team Nutrition Grant guidelines but rather a
decline in enrollment. In looking at meal costs (removing the issue of labor costs, etc),
the meal costs actually decreased significantly in the post-implementation phase,
suggesting that less money was spent on food compared to pre-implementation. The
“cost-per-meal” data confirm this trend: even though the breakfast:lunch ratio remained
unchanged on a monthly basis (pre vs. post), per meal costs declined in every month
except December, where the per meal costs were virtually identical from pre- to postimplementation. In this school, the food costs actually decreased following the
implementation of Team Nutrition Grant guidelines.
A La Carte Sales
A comparison of a la carte sales revealed a sharp decline in total sales: revenue dropped
from $19,332 to $8,171, a drop of more than 50%. (Refer to page 35, Chart 25) This was
in part due to Sierra Middle School’s decision to significantly limit the products offered
through a la carte lines. It would be advantageous for school personnel to review the
foods offered for sale on an a la carte basis and work with students to identify new
products that, while remaining true to Team Nutrition Grant guidelines, are more popular
and acceptable on a day-to-day basis.
Vending Sales
As has been reported by other schools across the nation, the income from vending sales
actually increased after the implementation of the Team Nutrition Grant; in fact, vending
sales more than doubled ($1,167 pre-implementation to $2,540 post-implementation).
(Refer to page 34, Chart 24) With appropriate food choices, students will continue to
purchase beverages and foods, offering profit opportunities to various school programs.
Bottom Line: Losses in a la carte sales were dramatic and were not offset by gains in
vending sales. Opportunities exist for school personnel to review products currently
offered for sale and possibly identify new foods and beverages that would generate
greater income.
Cesar Chavez High School
Pre-implementation fiscal data (August-December 2004) was compared to postimplementation data (August-December 2005). (Refer to page 34, Chart 24)
As the only high school in the 2004 Team Nutrition Grant pilot study, the information
presented reflected the attitudes and actions of an entirely different group of students.

44

Program Meals: Children’s Breakfasts
The number of breakfast meals served to children increased almost 20% from pre- to
post-implementation semesters (19,233 vs. 22,802), in large part due to the
implementation of a Universal Free Breakfast Program. Unfortunately, due to a 12%
increase in wages and a doubling of indirect costs, reported profits for breakfast meals
dropped by more than half from the pre- to the post-implementation phase ($53,882 vs.
$21,254). The wage increase was due to the districts decision to increase the salary of the
kitchen staff. It is important to note, however, that food costs did not increase with the
implementation of the Team Nutrition Grant even as the number of meals served went up
20%.
Program Meals: Children’s Lunches
The number of children’s lunches served also increased over this time period and did so
to a greater extent compared to breakfast: the number of breakfast meals served increased
about 20% while the number of lunch meals served to students increased more than 40%
(74,884 vs. 107,592). No data for wages, meal costs, or indirect costs were reported for
the lunch program, thus profit levels could not be calculated or compared from pre- to
post-implementation.
Meal Costs
The combined (breakfast plus lunch) post-implementation food costs were generally
lower or equal to food costs in the pre-implementation phase for every month of the fall
semester with the exception of October, where combined post-implementation food costs
were higher vs. pre-implementation. (Refer to page 39, Chart 29) When adjusted for the
number of meals served, the cost-per-meal was either lower or unchanged for every
month of the post-implementation phase. As with the other schools’ data, this is strong
evidence that implementation of Team Nutrition Grant guidelines did not increase total or
per-meal food costs. As noted on the “Cost per Meal” graph, these reduced food
expenditures cannot be explained by a higher breakfast service. In fact, on a month-tomonth basis, lunches typically accounted for a higher percentage of total meals served in
the post-implementation phase, which one would expect to result in an increase in total
and per-meal costs. In contrast, food costs actually decreased following the intervention
of the Team Nutrition Grant.
Bottom Line: Sales of breakfast and lunch meals increased with growth in the lunch
program far outpacing growth in breakfast meals. It is clear that implementation of Team
Nutrition Grant guidelines had no negative impact on the sales of meals to this group of
high school students. In addition, the implementation of the program was associated with
lower per-meal food costs, reflecting the lack of any food related financial burden
associated with Team Nutrition Grant guidelines.
A La Carte Sales
There was a sharp decrease in a la carte sales $126,970 (pre-implementation) to $64,310
(post-implementation), a decrease of approximately 50%. (Refer to page 34, Chart 24)
Considering the large increase in the number of school lunches sold, this may be a
reflection of students simply moving their dollars from one food option (a la carte) to
another (program meals). Lunch revenues more than doubled while lunch
45

reimbursements increased about 20%, thus students are clearly spending more of their
own money on program lunches. It remains to be seen if school personnel can modify a
la carte offerings to remain within Team Nutrition Grant guidelines and regain some of
the sales previously lost.
Vending Sales
Vending sales declined approximately 30% after the implementation of the Team
Nutrition Grant; reported profit declined from $6,059 to $4,295 while “other food sales”
such as DECA and JROTC dropped from approximately $6,000 to about $2,000. (Refer
to page 34, Chart 24) These figures were difficult to interpret, however, due to the
inclusion of “expenses” in the 2004, but not 2005, data. If reported expenses were
charged against other food sales income, implementation of the Team Nutrition Grant
guidelines would not have resulted in a loss of income.
Bottom Line: For this school, using the data reported (which were not comparable year
to year), income from both a la carte sales, vending machine sales, and other schoolbased food sales dropped sharply however, program meal participation increased. These
data suggest that high schools may be more impacted by the restriction or elimination of
low-nutrient value foods compared to middle schools. Across the country, high schools
have reported successful transitions when implementing programs similar to the 2004
Team Nutrition Grant, thus school personnel may need to continue in their efforts to
identify foods of higher nutrient value that are also appealing to their students and
profitable to their bottom line. Cesar Chavez High School is committed to continuing
their efforts.
Summary and Conclusion
Overall, the implementation of the 2004 Team Nutrition Grant had less of an impact in
the middle schools compared to the one participating high school. It will be important to
evaluate additional high schools in order to determine if this pattern continues. Overall,
middle schools did not appear to suffer financially from the implementation of the Team
Nutrition Grant guidelines thus the often-cited concerns of fiscal losses were not
frequently observed. Improving the nutrient value of foods sold to Arizona’s students did
not, with the possible exception of competitive food sales at the high school, have a
negative impact on the financial standing of the participating schools. Good nutrition, in
fact, did not come at a price. Some programs increased both sales and profits from
program meals, others saw small losses in competitive food sales, and, as previously
noted, only the one participating high school experienced a noted loss in “discretionary
income” from food sales. Even that one high school, however, experienced significant
increases in the sales of program lunches. A comparison of both total and per-meal food
costs revealed no significant financial burden; the implementation of the Team Nutrition
Grant did not increase food costs on a month-to-month comparative basis. In several
cases, meal (food) costs actually decreased or remained unchanged. Thus, there is no
evidence that the healthy foods came at a higher price. As the Team Nutrition Program
continues to expand, it can do so with the knowledge that most middle schools will
experience little if any loss of income (although increased wages and indirect costs may
erode profits). The consequences in high schools remain uncertain given the fact that the
only high school to participate in this phase did experience a loss of non-program
46

income, although food costs per se, on a per-meal basis, did not increase at all. All four
schools reported being satisfied with their outcomes and look forward to continuing their
efforts to provide a healthier school environment.

47