Evaluating the Success of the School Commodity Food Program



commodity program. No comparative research has evaluated school food expenditures among commodity
schools compared to cash in lieu or CLOC schools; thus, no direct estimates exist of additionality due to the
school commodity program.

It is clear, however, that the combined value of all federal commodity purchase programs—including the
school commodity program—are marginal with respect to total annual farm receipts. In 2007, national farm
receipts exceeded $284 billion, while the reported value of commodities delivered to all federal programs was
just $1.3 billion, or 0.5% of farm receipts (USDA Economic Research Service, 2009; USDA Commodity Food
Network, 2009).

Schools receive the majority of government commodities purchased for food assistance programs, as
demonstrated in Figure 1. USDA data indicate that the school commodity program received 70% of the total
value of commodity foods delivered to all federal food assistance programs in 2008 (the data range for 2001
to 2008 is 58% to 72%) (USDA Commodity Food Network, 2009).

As also demonstrated in Figure 1, for several years from 2001 to 2008 schools did not receive the full value
of commodities that was allocated, even if the value of bonus commodities was included. Each year that this
occurred represents a loss to both the agricultural sector and schools. Just one recent study—detailed
below—has assessed the factors that contribute to schools’ failure to obtain the full value of allotted
commodities funding.

Impact on Child Nutrition

Commodity foods constitute approximately 15% of foods in school meals, while the remainder are purchased
commercially (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 2008). The USDA list of available commodity foods in SY
2008-9 contained over 180 items. State agencies and school officials are responsible for selecting and
ordering commodities from the USDA.

It is unlikely that a direct connection between consumption of school commodities and children’s health could
be found. For example, there is no evidence in the published literature that commodity cheese or canned
pears have unique nutritional attributes compared to their commercial equivalents.

In some cases, schools may be able to specify nutritional attributes—such as “low sodium” or “zero



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. DISCUSSION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF EMERGING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
3. What Contribution Can Residential Field Courses Make to the Education of 11-14 Year-olds?
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Are Japanese bureaucrats politically stronger than farmers?: The political economy of Japan's rice set-aside program
7. Job quality and labour market performance
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent
11. Modelling the health related benefits of environmental policies - a CGE analysis for the eu countries with gem-e3
12. The name is absent
13. Howard Gardner : the myth of Multiple Intelligences
14. The storage and use of newborn babies’ blood spot cards: a public consultation
15. A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics
16. Natural Resources: Curse or Blessing?
17. The name is absent
18. ASSESSMENT OF MARKET RISK IN HOG PRODUCTION USING VALUE-AT-RISK AND EXTREME VALUE THEORY
19. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20. Achieving the MDGs – A Note