RESEARCH ARTICLE School Breakfast Program Participation and Parental Attitudes AMY ELLEN SAMPSON, ALAN MEYERS, BEATRICE LORGE ROGERS, AND MICHAEL WEITZMAN School of Nutrition, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155 ABSTRACT To determine whether or not parental per- ceptions about the School Breakfast Program (SBP) are asso- ciated with SBP participation among low-income children, the attitudes of low-income parents toward a newly-implemented SBP in Lawrence, Massachusetts were surveyed. Self-admin- istered surveys were sent home to the parents of 1086 children; response rate was 70%. Sixt Y percent of respondents reported that their child ate breakfast at school. Children were signifi- cantly more likely to be participants th an non-participants if they were Hispanic as opposed to white, non-Hispanic, if they shared in the decision as to where they would eat breakfast, and if they were eligible for free meals as opposed to reduced- priee meals. Parents of participants were significantly more likely than parents of non-participants to feel the SBP would save them time or energy and family food money, and that it was good for children to eat with their classmates. As might be expected, participants' parents were significantly less likely to feel that children should only eat breakfast at home with the family. Additional research is needed to address factors that prevent low-income children who wish to participate in an SBP from doing so. In addition to student and family characteristics, future research should investigate school characteristics, pro- gram operations, the effectiveness of program promotion, and the role of nutrition education. (jNE 23:110-115, 1991) INTRODUCTION The Schooi Breakfast Program (SBP) was created by Con- gress in 1966 as a means to safeguard the health and well- being of the nation's children (1). The primary purpose of the SBP is to provide breakfast to children from low- incarne families (2). Both the SBP and the National School Lunch Pro gram (NSLP) offer meals to students at full price, reduced price, or free, according to uniform na- tional eligibility criteria based on family income and size. Families with incomes below 130% of the federal poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals (2). Nationally, 84% of SBP participants receive free meals, and 4% re- duced price (3). While the NSLP is available to 96% of Address for correspondence: Amy Ellen Sampson, Ph. D., Tufts Uni- versity School of Nutrition, 132 Curtis Street, Medford, MA 02155; (617) 381-3223. 0022-3182/91/2303-0 Il 0$03.00/0 © 1991 SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION 110 the approximately 50 million public school children in the United States, the SBP is available to only about 40%. Moreover, even in those schools in which breakfast is offered, average daily participation of children eligible for free or reduced-price meals is only 21-30% (3-5), compared with 85% participation by low-income children in the NSLP (3,4). The reasons for this low rate of par- ticipation are not weIl known. In contrast to the NSLP, which was established in 1946, implementation of the SBP has been controversial in sorne school districts (3). It has been suggested that parents may oppose the schools' providing breakfast for a variety of reasons, including the foIlowing: it is not an appropriate role for schools to offer a SBP; a SBP un- dennines the role of the parents and weakens the insti- tution of the family; the quality of the school breakfast is inferior to that of a meal prepared at home (1, 3, 6). This study reports the results of a survey of attitudes toward the SBP among the parents of low-income chil- dren qualified to receive free or reduced-price school meals, and their association with participation in the pro- gram. This survey was conducted in conjunction with a studv of the effects of SBP on school performance (5). Whâe collecting standardized test scores and absence and tardiness rates among elementary school students in a school system offering the SBP for the nrst time, the authors took the opportunity to survey parents' opinions on questions relevant to the breakfast program. POPULATION In August 1986, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted legislation (Chapter 346, Acts of 1986) mandating the implementation of the SBP in those schools not of- fering the program in which 40% or more of the students received free or reduced-price lunches through the NSLP. In 1986-87, Lawrence was one of the five large schooi districts in eastern Massachusetts implementing the SBP under this state legislative mandate. Lawrence is an ethnicaIly diverse city with a population of 63,175, of which 81% are White, 16% Hispanic, and 2% Black. Nineteen percent of the general population, and 31 % of