School Food Policies and Perspectives: An examination of policy, funding models and caregivers’ perceptions
| dc.contributor.advisor | Engler-Stringer, Rachel | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Pahwa, Punam | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Muhajarine, Nazeem | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Vatanparast, Hassan | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Henry, Carol | |
| dc.contributor.committeeMember | Yeudall , Fiona | |
| dc.creator | Datta Gupta, Suvadra | |
| dc.creator.orcid | 0000-0002-1324-0180 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-01-23T16:55:32Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-01-23T16:55:32Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024 | |
| dc.date.created | 2024-01 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-01-23 | |
| dc.date.submitted | January 2024 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2024-01-23T16:55:32Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Despite being a high-income country, Canada does not have a national school food program (SFP). Furthermore, there is no established policy to ensure that the different meal programs across the country, which operate under varying mandates, policies, and funding streams, are properly coordinated. Developing a national school food policy and building on existing programs was an election commitment made by the federal government in 2021. These intentions were reiterated in the 2022 federal budget and included in two Ministerial mandate letters. While there is a possibility of having a federally supported SFP or policy soon, little research exists on how caregivers feel about such a program nor on the policy landscape of SFPs across G7 countries, even though some of the most highly regarded programs can be found there. Methodology: A quantitative survey was conducted to understand- i) caregivers’ willingness to participate and pay for a universal, cost-shared, and curriculum-integrated SFP and ii) attributes perceived as important by caregivers to be a part of such a program. A contingency valuation method was used to examine caregivers’ willingness to participate and pay, and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to reveal themes that inform caregivers’ preferences. Secondly, a review of current national policies underlying the SFPs of the G7 countries was conducted. The policy review was informed by 7 webinars, 17 policy documents, and numerous newspaper and peer-reviewed articles and organized under core themes common across all the G7 countries. Findings: The quantitative study found that over 90% of respondents across all socio-economic strata were willing to participate in a universally offered curriculum-integrated SFP, and over 70% of respondents were willing to pay for a cost-shared approach. The average amount participants were willing to pay for a SFP was $4.68 (CAD). Households that reported moderate or severe food insecurity were willing to pay less. Among the participants who had completed post-secondary education and worked full-time, approximately 80% were willing to pay. As the number of people in a household increased, willingness to participate increased, but willingness to pay decreased. In addition, parents whose children went to a school with small to medium SFPs were less inclined to participate in the proposed SFP compared to the participants whose children went to a school without an SFP. The significant difference between the proportion of respondents willing to participate and willing to pay highlights that despite high demand for a universal SFP, if a cost-shared modality is chosen it must be designed with care. Any cost-sharing should be tailored to community characteristics, such as prevalence of food insecurity, economic participation of women, and average household size. This research has revealed insights about what Canadian caregivers consider essential in a SFP. Through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), we have identified that caregivers prioritize four components as essential. These are- learning opportunities, offering food choices that promote health, accommodating students' dietary needs, and ensuring adaptability. The first component emphasizes the significance of including various learning opportunities, such as growing and preparing food, food systems, and socializing during meals. The second component includes providing healthy food options that align with Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) recommendations, ensuring sufficient time for eating, offering a variety of food options, and making the program accessible to all or most children. The third component represents affordability and includes offering drinks and various portion sizes and offering free or affordable meals. The fourth component signifies the need for the meal program to be adaptive to various dietary needs and includes offering food that accommodates dietary needs and is culturally appropriate. The school food policy review found that across the G7 countries, dietary guidelines are the most prevalent type of policy. These guidelines vary in their level of detail and legislative authority. Health promotion is identified as the most frequently targeted policy objective. Some policies required nutritional standards only, while some include other aspects such as food procurement, cooking, and distribution. The overall structure of SFPs is determined by the collaboration between multiple government departments, such as education and health, and different levels of government, such as federal and local. Non-profit organizations and policies at various levels, such as the European Union and national/regional policies, also play a collective role in this structure. In most countries, SFP implementation is the responsibility of local governments, with the cost shared between parents and local governments. Universal free school meals (UFSM) are only available in primary schools in England, Scotland, and Wales to various extents, while cost sharing with families is the more common funding scenario. In countries where there is little federal involvement in SFP management and implementation, geographic variation is seen in the price parents pay and also in school food program participation. Policy recommendations: Based on the two studies, I recommend: • To legislate a national school food policy for Canada that prioritizes population health and ensures universal access to SFP. • To have a holistic approach towards food, where food literacy is a cornerstone practice. • To establish direct and consistent federal funding. If a model that is cost-shared with families is chosen, offering a free meal option is essential, while ensuring the anonymity of caregivers who draw on it. At minimum, eligibility criteria for free meals must consider provincial/territorial food insecurity levels. • Any national policy should have clearly articulated goals, roles, and responsibilities for related stakeholders, including program managers, coordinators, parents, and teachers. Conclusion: A universally offered SFP for Canada is desired by children’s caregivers and should be designed within a comprehensive national school food policy that is consistent with global promising practices. | |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10388/15449 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | Willingness to participate | |
| dc.subject | willingness to pay | |
| dc.subject | school food program | |
| dc.subject | attributes | |
| dc.subject | school food policy | |
| dc.subject | policy review. | |
| dc.title | School Food Policies and Perspectives: An examination of policy, funding models and caregivers’ perceptions | |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.type.material | text | |
| thesis.degree.department | Community Health and Epidemiology | |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Community and Population Health Science | |
| thesis.degree.grantor | University of Saskatchewan | |
| thesis.degree.level | Doctoral | |
| thesis.degree.name | Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) |