Local Wellness Policy

1
Local Wellness Policy Development and
Implementation Early Reports from USDA LWP
Demonstration Project
Elaine McDonnell, MS, RD Project Coordinator,
Penn State University Society for Nutrition
Education Conference New Orleans, LA July 13, 2009
2
Baseline Data Collection (Fall of 2007)

• On-line surveys
• Interviews
• District and school level
• 31 Districts 84 schools

3
Topic Areas

• LWP Development
• Background
• Strengths and Barriers
• Controversial Areas

4
Topic Areas

• LWP Implementation
• Steps and Degree of Implementation
• Communication
• Involvement
• Strengths, Barriers, and Challenges

What have we learned?
5
LWP Development - Background

• 51.6 conducted needs assessment
• 90.3 used a template
• Resources most often used included those provided
  by
• USDA (45.2)
• State Departments of Education (41.9)
• Action for Healthy Kids (41.9)

6
LWP Development - Background

• Top sources of training were
• SDE (41.9 statewide, 29 regional)
• School Nutrition Association/National Dairy
• Council (29).

7
LWP Development - Background
Those most often involved in development Princip
al (100) PE teacher (100) Foodservice
Director (100) Nurse (100) Parents
(96.8) Students (96.8) Superintendent
(93.5) Less often involved Individuals who
sell foods/beverages (9.7- 45.2)
8
LWP Development - Background
Who drafted the LWP?
9
LWP Development - Background

• Who is responsible for ensuring implementation?
• Foodservice Director (61.3)
• Superintendent (51.6)

10
LWP Development Strengths and Barriers

• Significant strengths
• School staff expertise (87.1)
• Administrative support (80.6)
• Personal commitment (77.4)
• Leadership (71.0)

11
Leadership
Principal Our Curriculum Director was our go
to person. She supported us, made sure we were
communicating, and was our main police. She
retired. Theres a transition nowwe dont know
where were going at this point. She was our
lead.
12
LWP Development Strengths and Barriers

• Significant barriers
• Time (32.3)
• Financial resources (25.8)
• Financial impact (22.6)

13
LWP Development Areas of Controversy

14
Controversy about A la carte items
Foodservice Director One of the committees
goals was to eliminate sugary drinks like iced
tea. The committee had to understand what would
happen to the cafeteria budget if these items
were eliminated.
15
Controversy about A la carte items
Foodservice Director Some teachers thought
that snack cakes should completely go. But, how
can you have an issue with that when youre
selling candy right outside the cafeteria door?
16
Controversy about Fundraisers
Principal We just had our big PTA candy
fundraiser. I hate this fundraiser but they sold
18,000 worth of candy and we get 50 profit.
17
Controversy about Food Rewards
Curriculum Director I observe in classes all
the time. The amount of candy that was consumed
was amazing. From class to class, kids might have
8-10 pieces of candy per day. There was a lot of
discussion about this.
18
Controversy about Classroom Parties
Wellness Committee Member There was concern
about restricting what parents can bring in.
Whos going to police that? Some parents cant
afford fresh fruits and vegetables. Its much
easier to bring cupcakes than to think of other
things to bring.
19
LWP Implementation Steps Taken

• Key stakeholders made aware of LWP (83.9)
• Current foods/beverages assessed (67.7)
• Research to identify allowable
• foods/beverages (67.7)

20
LWP Implementation Steps Taken

• Communication plan developed (48.4)
• Prioritized goals (38.7)
• Developed action plans (38.7)
• Modified schedules (29.0)

21
LWP Implementation Steps Taken
22
LWP Degree of Implementation

23
LWP Implementation-Individuals Involved
Those most often involved Foodservice Director
(100) Principal (96.8) PE teacher
(96.8) Nurse (96.8) Parents (96.8) Students
(96.8) Less often involved Individuals who
sell foods/beverages (38.7-45.2) Community
(16-42)
24
LWP Implementation-Communication

• Web was top form of communication with
• community (61.3)
• parents (71)
• students (41.9)

Face-to-face (58.1) and web (54.8) were top
forms of communication with staff.
25
LWP Implementation-Communication

• Newsletters often used in CA and PA.
• PA Top form of communication with
  students was face-to-face.
• 63 of IA districts had no communication with
  community.
• Overall, less communication with students than
  other groups.

26
LWP Implementation-Feedback
27
LWP Implementation-Feedback
28
LWP Implementation Strengths and Barriers

• Significant strengths
• School staff expertise (77.4)
• Administrative support (77.4)
• Personal commitment (67.7)
• Leadership (64.5)

29
LWP Implementation Strengths and Barriers

• Significant barriers
• Time (25.8)
• Financial resources (19.4)
• Financial impact (16.1)

30
LWP Implementation Strengths and Barriers

• Significant barriers
• Barriers to Development
• Time (25.8) (32.3)
• Financial resources (19.4) (25.8)
• Financial impact (16.1) (22.6)

31
LWP Implementation Strengths and Barriers

• Community support/expertise
• Significant support (29.0)

• Community advocacy
• Significant support (12.9)
• No impact (41.9)

32
LWP Implementation Challenges
Funding 41.9 Time 41.9 Lack of buy-in
35.5
33
LWP Implementation Challenges

• Other
• What is taught in classroom is not reinforced in
  home and community.
• No consequences for policy violation.
• Communication
• Other priorities

34
Other Priorities
Is student wellness truly a priority in our
culturethe focus in our district is still on
meeting academic standards.
35
Other Priorities
There is so much that needs to be done. Wellness
doesnt seem to have a sense of urgency.
36
LWP Development and Implementation

• Themes
• Schools report significant strengths.
• Time and funding are barriers, but most did not
  report them as significant barriers.
• Competitive foods and offered foods focus area
  of most districts, most controversial.

37
LWP Development and Implementation

• Themes
• Weaknesses in measuring implementation.
• Community and student involvement may be weak.

38
LWP Development and Implementation

• Themes
• Do those responsible for ensuring implementation
  have the time and authority?
• Questions exist about sustainability.

39
LWP Development and Implementation

• Assistance Needs
• Time management
• Funding issues
• Action planning
• Engaging students and community
• Measuring implementation
• Models for Success

40
Stay Tuned for Second Wave Data
41
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.
42
Contact Elaine McDonnell, MS, RD Project
Coordinator Penn State University 110 Chandlee
Laboratory University Park, PA 16802 Phone
814-865-5869 E-mail etm101_at_psu.edu