Lessons Learned From a Partnership to Evaluate a School Food Program.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, leadership at a Boston school approached academic investigators for help with assessing their new school food program. METHODS: The community-academic partnership implemented a two-phase community-based participatory research (CBPR) assessment. The qualitative phase involved key stakeholder focus groups. The quantitative assessment involved height/weight measurement and dietary recalls at the beginning and end of the year. RESULTS: The qualitative assessment revealed low stakeholder engagement in the food program and resulted in substantive changes. In the quantitative phase, the partnership terminated the study after recruitment goals were not met. LESSONS LEARNED: The quantitative assessment faced administrative hurdles to conducting school-based research and obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval of CBPR projects, low recruitment, and diminished partnership strength. The constant effort to sustain partnerships, IRB processes mal adapted for CBPR, and training needs for community investigators are challenges and opportunities for success. CONCLUSIONS: CBPR can be useful for school-based research, but key process changes could increase its effectiveness.

"Can't We Just Have Some Sazón?" Student, Family, and Staff Perspectives on a New School Food Program at a Boston High School.

BACKGROUND: In September 2013, a Massachusetts high school launched a nutrition program in line with 2013 United States Department of Agriculture requirements. We sought to understand attitudes of stakeholders toward the new program. METHODS: We employed community-based participatory research methods in a qualitative evaluation of the food program at the school, where 98% of students are students of color and 86% qualify for free/reduced lunch. We conducted 4 student (N = 32), 2 parent (N = 10), 1 faculty/staff focus group (N = 14), and interviews with school leadership (N = 3). RESULTS: A total of 10 themes emerged from focus groups and interviews, in 3 categories--impressions of the food (insufficient portion size, dislike of the taste, appreciation of the freshness, increased unhealthy food consumption outside school), impact on learning (learning what's healthy, the program's innovativeness, control versus choice), and concerns about stakeholder engagement (lack of student/family engagement, culturally incompatible foods). A representative comment was: "You need something to hold them from 9 to 5, because if they are hungry, McDonald's is right there." CONCLUSION: Stakeholders appreciated the educational value of the program but stakeholder dissatisfaction may jeopardize its success. Action steps could include incorporating culturally appropriate recipes in the school's menus and working with local restaurants to promote healthier offerings.