Table 3.
Associations between county-level characteristics and summer lunch uptake rates† in 2016, in all fifty-eight counties in California, USA
| Counties with over 10 % uptake | Counties with over 18 % uptake | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | P | % | P | |
| Overall | 58 | 69·0 | 32·8 | ||
| Locale‡ | |||||
| Rural/township | 21 | 52·4 | 33·3 | ||
| Urban/suburban | 37 | 78·4 | 0·040 | 32·4 | 0·584 |
| Low education rates‡ | |||||
| No | 37 | 73·0 | 43·2 | ||
| Yes | 21 | 61·9 | 0·279 | 14·3 | 0·022 |
| Low employment rates‡ | |||||
| No | 36 | 75·0 | 38·9 | ||
| Yes | 22 | 59·1 | 0·164 | 22·7 | 0·163 |
| Persistent child poverty‡ | |||||
| No | 53 | 69·8 | 35·8 | ||
| Yes | 5 | 60·0 | 0·497 | 00·0 | 0·126 |
†
Calculations of uptake rate included daily lunches served in July 2016 through three programmes: Summer Food Service Program, Seamless Summer Option or National School Lunch Program.
‡
Categories are defined by the US Department of Agriculture’s 2015 county typology codes( 24 ).