Food & Nutrition Services Review for Chesterfield County Public Schools PrismaticServices.com 20460 Chartwell Center Drive, Suite 1 Cornelius, NC 28031 704-438-9929 Table of Contents 1 Review Overview and Stakeholder Input ......................................... 1-1 Background ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Methodology .....................................................................................................1-2 Stakeholder Input ................................................................................................ 1-8 Participatory Data Analysis ................................................................................ 1-14 2 Findings and Recommendations ...................................................... 2-1 Central Office Organization ................................................................................. 2-2 Cafeteria Operations .......................................................................................... 2-46 Marketing .................................................................................................. 2-67 Appendix A: Cafeteria Worker Survey Results Appendix B: Student Survey Results Appendix C: School Staff/Principal Survey Results Appendix D: Summer Feeding Survey Results Appendix E: Rate My Lunch Infographic Appendix F: Supervisor Site Visit Report and Food Safety Checklist Appendix G: Parent Survey Results Review Overview and Stakeholder Input Review Overview and Stakeholder Input In April 2018, Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS) initiated a contract with Prismatic Services, Inc., to complete an assessment of the division’s Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) department. Per the Request for Proposal (RFP) that led to the contract, the purpose of the project is to “perform an evaluation of school cafeteria operations and central office organization, and to provide a marketing plan to increase participation in the school food program.” This chapter contains these sections: Background Methodology Stakeholder Input Participatory Data Analysis Background School food programs are complex businesses with often finicky customers. Nevertheless, the goal has always been clear. As articulated in the Child Nutrition Act of 1946, which authorized the National School Lunch Program, the goal is to “safeguard the health and well- being of the nation’s children.”1 School food programs have never had the luxury of reaching for that goal in a static environment. As noted in the seminal text Managing Child Nutrition Programs: Leadership for Excellence: Although the need for and philosophy of the programs were established many years ago, practically everything else about the program has changed. The world is faced with rapid expansion of information and technological and social changes that will have a massive impact on the way programs are managed in the future and the customers served. (xxiii)2 Written in 1999, those words are both prescient and still true today. The Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) made sweeping changes in the school food service environment and ignited fierce debate. Today’s food service programs must contend with both rapid developments in customer preferences and continuing pressures from their school divisions to remain financially solvent. Student and parent expectations have increased steadily, at the same time that technological advancements have made it possible for the school food business to be increasingly sophisticated. Unlike 20 years ago, the school food business of today is characterized by rapid changes and ever-increasing improvement. 1 https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/history_5 2 Martin, J. and Conklin, M. (1999). Managing child nutrition programs: Leadership for excellence. Gaiterhsburg, MD: Aspen Publishers. 1-1 Methodology The RFP included requested activities and outcomes in the three areas of central office organization, cafeteria operations, and marketing. These are shown in Exhibit 1-1. 1-2 Exhibit 1-1 - RFP Areas, Requested Activities, and Expected Outcomes Area Activities Outcomes • Review positions, organizational structure, and use of • Recommendations to improve: technology to increase efficiency through face-to-face o central office efficiency interviews and focus groups o menus and menu cycle • Review menuing, menu cycle, and food allergy o accommodation of students’ dietary restrictions program o participation in general and by various cross-sections Central • Review current levels of participation o waste reduction efforts Office • Assess current waste reduction efforts via interviews o Breakfast in the Classroom Organization and observations o Summer Feeding • Evaluate Breakfast in the Classroom program via data • Training program for cafeteria staff to support high quality analysis, observations, teacher surveys, and interviews operations • Evaluate Summer Feeding program via data analysis • Low-cost employee incentive program and interviews (and perhaps student surveys) • Evaluate training needs • Assess operations in at least nine schools (three each • Recommendations to improve: level) via onsite observations, interviews, focus groups, o current food production program student/parent surveys, and data analysis o recipes/cooking methods Cafeteria • Review recipes o serving line presentation Operations • Research kiosks for secondary use o participation through theme days • Review existing QC elements/Develop QC program • Training program for cafeteria staff to implement recommendations • Evaluate training needs • Food Service QC program • Recommendations for secondary kiosks • Evaluate current marketing plan and marketing • CCPS school nutrition branding program efforts, including branding, signage, and aesthetics via • Student survey instruments and survey program observations and interviews • Recommendations to improve: • Assess past special marketing and promotion events o student taste test program Marketing via data analysis and interviews o student focus group and/or Student Advisory Committee Plan • Field initial student survey to gather baseline data o student only food fair • Evaluate website content and usage via observation o special marketing and promotion events and parent surveys o department website • Evaluate training needs • Customer services training program for department staff to support guest satisfaction, increased participation, and improved sales 1-3 Prismatic proposed to fulfill the awarded contract with an 11–step work plan: 1. Initiate project 2. Collect initial input 3. Collect and review current program data 4. Solicit stakeholder input 5. Complete fieldwork 6. Complete initial analyses 7. Review initial recommendations and alternatives for program improvements 8. Develop recommendations for cafeteria operations and central office 9. Develop cafeteria operations and quality training programs 10. Develop branding and marketing programs 11. Prepare report and close project This report is provided as the conclusion of the research and recommendation phases of this project. Training and marketing assistance tasks will be completed after the submission of this report. The contract required that onsite observations be completed before the end of the 2017-18 school year. The FNS department selected the nine pilot schools that were the focus of onsite observations. Exhibit 1-2 provides an overview of the nine. Members of the consulting team visited each of these schools at least twice in May 2018. Several were visited again in the Fall of 2018. Exhibit 1-2 Study Pilot Schools % Eligible for 2017-18 Average # CCPS Free/Reduced- Daily Participation w/Similar School Price Meals Breakfast Lunch Setup Chalkley Elementary 82% 65% 71% 27 Crenshaw Elementary 48% 31% 57% Gates Elementary 33% 17% 41% 3 Carver Middle 49% 13% 56% 6 Manchester Middle 47% 24% 62% Salem Middle 59% 29% 68% 1 Bird High 45% 13% 43% 4 Cosby High 10% 2% 22% 1 Meadowbrook High 61% 11% 45% 2 Source: Data from CCPS, 2018 Because one school board member suggested reviewing food service operations at a division school with an extremely low rate of free/reduced-price meal eligible students, the consulting team observed lunch at Weaver Elementary (2% FRP). In addition to the nine pilot schools, members of the consulting team reviewed summer feeding operations in 12 schools. Photos of meals students selected on the days of observation are provided in Exhibit 1-3. 1-4 Exhibit 1-3 Sample of Meals Selected by Students Elementary Schools Source: Prismatic 1-5 Exhibit 1-3 (continued) Sample of Meals Selected by Students Middle Schools Source: Prismatic 1-6 Exhibit 1-3 (continued) Sample of Meals Selected by Students High Schools Source: Prismatic Concurrent with this study, CCPS undertook a facilities and equipment study that reviewed kitchen equipment. Based on the manufacturer’s lifespans and the current age of the equipment in each CCPS kitchen, the study developed a multi-year equipment replacement plan. Excluding any replacement needed for broken equipment or purchases of new types of equipment needed for new methods of food production, the plan projects a need for approximately $0.5M to $1.5M in equipment purchases each year (Exhibit 1-4). 1-7 Exhibit 1-4 Results of CCPS Facilities Study for Kitchen Equipment $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Projected Needed Replacement Outlay $0 Source: EMG facilities and equipment study of CCPS, 2018 Stakeholder Input Prismatic places a high premium on the gathering of stakeholder input.