Klara Gurzo1, Danielle Louhrine Lee2, Kyle Ritchie2, Sallie Yoshida3, Elyse Homel Vitale4, Ken Hecht2, Lorrene Davis Ritchie5. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nutrition Policy Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 3. Social Policy Research Associates, Oakland, CA. 4. Child Care Food Program Roundtable, San Diego, CA. 5. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nutrition Policy Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Electronic address: lritchie@ucanr.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare food/beverage provisions between child care sites participating and not participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey administered in 2016. SETTING: Licensed child care centers and homes. PARTICIPANTS: Child care providers (n = 2,400) randomly selected from California databases (30% responded). Respondents (n = 680) were primarily site directors (89%) at child care centers (83%) participating in CACFP (70%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meals/snacks served, and food/beverage provisions provided to children of age 1-5 years on the day before the survey. ANALYSIS: Odds ratios unadjusted and adjusted for the number of meals/snacks using logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared with CACFP sites, non-CACFP sites provided fewer meals/snacks; had lower odds of providing vegetables, meats/poultry/fish, eggs, whole grains, and milk; and had higher odds of providing candy, salty snacks, and sugary drinks. After adjusting for the number of meals/snacks, differences were attenuated but remained significant for meats/poultry/fish, milk, candy, salty snacks (centers only), and sugary drinks. Differences emerged in favor of CACFP for flavored/sugar-added yogurt, sweet cereals, frozen treats, and white grains. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Child care sites participating in CACFP are more likely to provide nutritious foods/beverages compared with non-CACFP sites. Child care sites are encouraged to participate in or follow CACFP program guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To compare food/beverage provisions between child care sites participating and not participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey administered in 2016. SETTING: Licensed child care centers and homes. PARTICIPANTS: Child care providers (n = 2,400) randomly selected from California databases (30% responded). Respondents (n = 680) were primarily site directors (89%) at child care centers (83%) participating in CACFP (70%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Meals/snacks served, and food/beverage provisions provided to children of age 1-5 years on the day before the survey. ANALYSIS: Odds ratios unadjusted and adjusted for the number of meals/snacks using logistic regression. RESULTS: Compared with CACFP sites, non-CACFP sites provided fewer meals/snacks; had lower odds of providing vegetables, meats/poultry/fish, eggs, whole grains, and milk; and had higher odds of providing candy, salty snacks, and sugary drinks. After adjusting for the number of meals/snacks, differences were attenuated but remained significant for meats/poultry/fish, milk, candy, salty snacks (centers only), and sugary drinks. Differences emerged in favor of CACFP for flavored/sugar-added yogurt, sweet cereals, frozen treats, and white grains. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Child care sites participating in CACFP are more likely to provide nutritious foods/beverages compared with non-CACFP sites. Child care sites are encouraged to participate in or follow CACFP program guidelines.
Authors: Danielle L Lee; Raquel Traseira; Sophia Navarro; Natasha Frost; Sara E Benjamin-Neelon; Angie L Cradock; Ken Hecht; Lorrene D Ritchie Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Andrea Ramirez; Maya Vadiveloo; Patricia M Risica; Kim M Gans; Mary L Greaney; Noereem Z Mena; Kristen Cooksey Stowers; Alison Tovar Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-11-29 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Audrey Elford; Cherice Gwee; Maliney Veal; Rati Jani; Ros Sambell; Shabnam Kashef; Penelope Love Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390