Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 9.
Published in final edited form as: J Policy Anal Manage. 2016 Summer;35(3):509–532. doi: 10.1002/pam.21909

Table 2.

Impact of BIC adoption on meals program participation, 2001/02.

All schools Elementary Middle
Breakfast
 Post-BIC adoption: school with <25% coverage  0.044***
(0.006)		  0.045***
(0.007)		  0.042***
(0.011)
 Post-BIC adoption: school with >25% coverage, not full  0.195***
(0.018)		  0.197***
(0.021)		  0.226***
(0.040)
 Post-BIC adoption: full school  0.302***
(0.032)		  0.333***
(0.043)		  0.336***
(0.032)
Lunch
 Post-BIC adoption: school with <25% coverage  0.006
(0.007)		  0.009
(0.006)		 −0.009
(0.017)
 Post-BIC adoption: School with >25% coverage, not full −0.008
(0.008)		  0.011
(0.007)		 −0.036*
(0.018)
 Post-BIC adoption: full school −0.005
(0.018)		 −0.001
(0.018)		 0.045
(0.048)
N—breakfast (school × year)  12,407  7,833  2,598
Mean breakfast participation pre-2008  0.201  0.236  0.120
N—lunch (school × year)  12,062  7,518  2,565
Mean lunch participation 2008  0.732  0.813  0.629

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses, robust to clustering at the school level (***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05). Meals program participation is measured as the average daily breakfasts or lunches served divided by ADA. All models include school and year effects. Covariates include total school enrollment, percent Limited English proficient (LEP), percent receiving special education services, percent of students by race/ethnicity, percent female, percent eligible for free meals, and percent eligible for reduced price meals. Schools that ever adopted BIC are divided into three categories: (1) those that offered BIC to fewer than 25 percent of all classrooms; (2) those that offered BIC to 25 percent or more of classrooms, but did not offer it schoolwide; and (3) those that reported offering BIC schoolwide.