OPERATIONS
This chapter reviews the Grape Creek Independent School District's (GCISD's) operations and includes these sections:
- A. Facilities Management
- B. Computers and Technology
- C. Transportation
- D. Food Services
D. FOOD SERVICES
School food services are responsible for providing students and staff an appealing and nutritious breakfast and lunch at a reasonable cost in a safe, clean and accessible environment. They must carry out these responsibilities in compliance with federal and state regulations and local board policy.
Several factors are routinely used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of school food services including meals per labor hour (MPLH), food costs, breakfast and lunch participation rates, and student and staff surveys.
GCISD food services are organized under the Food Services Department. The director of Food Services reports to the director of Business and Finance. Food Services operates two cafeterias, one at the elementary/intermediate school and one at the high school. The elementary school cafeteria employs six full-time staff and the high school cafeteria employs five, including the cafeteria manager. Exhibit 4-16 shows the organization of GCISD Food Services.
Exhibit 4-16 2000-01 Source: GCISD Food Services director, April 2001.
GCISD Food Services DepartmentGCISD participates in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). The NSLP and SBP are the primary school nutrition programs sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). They offer free and reduced-price meals to eligible populations based on family incomes in relation to the federal poverty level. Participating districts are reimbursed for every free and reduced-price meal served. Exhibit 4-17 summarizes the reimbursement rates for 2000-01. School districts are responsible for identifying eligible families and informing them about the programs.
Exhibit 4-17 Source: TEA School Food Services Department, 2000-01.
Reimbursement Rates
2000-01
Reimbursement Rates Reimbursable Lunches:
- Full price: $0.19
- Reduced-price: $1.62
- Free: $2.02
Reimbursable Breakfasts:
- Full price: $0.21
- Reduced-price: $0.82
- Free: $1.12
Breakfast-Severe Needs Schools:
- Reduced-price: $0.21
- Free: $0.21
Reduced-Price Meals (Maximum Allowable):
- Lunch: $1.62
- Breakfast: $0.82
Exhibit 4-18 shows the amounts GCISD charges for lunch and breakfast prepared at the schools.
Exhibit 4-18 Source: GCISD Food Services Department.
GCISD Food Services Department
School Lunch and Breakfast Price Schedule
Full Price Reduced-Price Lunch Adults $2.00 N/A Pre-K through grade 5 $1.25 $0.40 Grade 6 through grade 12 $1.50 $0.40 Breakfast Adults $0.50 N/A Pre-K through grade 5 $0.50 $0.30 Grade 6 through grade 12 $0.50 $0.30 Exhibit 4-19 compares GCISD student lunch participation rates to expected rates. GCISD exceeds the expected participation in both cafeterias. One reason is the district's closed-campus policy, which limits competition from local food vendors.
Exhibit 4-19 Source: Pannell, School Food Services Management, 4th Edition and GCISD Food Services Department.
Expected and Actual GCISD Lunch Participation Rates
By Grade Level
Grade
LevelExpected
Participation
RateGCISD
Participation
RatePercent Difference:
Expected vs.
Actual GCISDElementary/intermediate school 65% 76% 11% High schools 50% 65% 15% Student participation in the National School Lunch Program is shown in Exhibit 4-20. This program is also frequently called the free and reduced-price lunch program.
Exhibit 4-20 Source: GCISD Food Services Department, October 2000.
Participation by School Type in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Programs
October 2000
Eligible Participation Percent
ParticipationElementary/intermediate school 459 373 81.3% High school 94 71 75.5% District 553 444 80.3% Students receive GCISD's free and reduced-price anonymously. Eligibility is determined through distribution of forms through students to parents. Notes sent to parents via students, fliers and public announcements notify parents the forms are being distributed, and forms are also available from the Food Services Department. On the form, parents must attest that the family is eligible for the program and provide estimated annual family income, family size and ages of children in the household.
The Food Service director compares data on the completed forms to the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Programs Income Eligibility Guidelines and enters the data for eligible students into the School Nutrition Accounts Program System (SNAPS). SNAPS identifies students who receive free and reduced-price meals via magnetic swipe cards issued to students. The food service director or director's secretary swipes students' cards as they pass through the cafeteria line, and software confidentially recognizes students who can receive a free or reduced-price meal, records the meal, and provides a summary of all meals served by price paid: full price, reduced-price and free.
FINDING
The cafeteria for the elementary/intermediate school is too small to accommodate the student population. Some students carry trays back to the classrooms to eat. They consider this a privilege and enjoy eating in the classrooms with their classmates. Since students are served on the same disposable trays used in the cafeterias, sanitation is not a problem.
Eating outside the cafeteria is not an option due to the lack of covered seating and protection from the weather.
COMMENDATION
The district has devised an innovative solution to overcrowding by allowing students to eat in their classrooms.
FINDING
GCISD does not actively encourage parents to complete eligibility forms for free and reduced-price meals. Advertising and incentive award programs are not used and the principals do not play an active role in the identification of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals.
Identifying those students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches and breakfasts through the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program is a tedious and time-consuming process. Some parents are reluctant to fill out the necessary forms. With some parents it is a matter of pride; with others it is a matter of literacy. Some students are hesitant to participate in the program, especially at the secondary levels, because it is not "cool" to be identified as poor. Principals are often so overloaded with paperwork of all kinds, it is sometimes difficult to find time to pay much attention to these forms.
What many school district officials forget, however, is that federal Compensatory and Title I funding flows to a school district based on their number of economically disadvantaged students. And, economically disadvantaged is defined as students identified as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. These funds are funneled to districts so that they can provide additional services to students at risk of dropping out of school. While not all economically disadvantaged students are considered at risk, the number of economically disadvantaged students closely tracks the number of at-risk students. The federal government therefore, uses this figure as its criteria.
In most Texas school districts, the district receives about $500 - $700 per child, per year, in Compensatory and Title I money for every child identified for free and reduced-price meals. In 2000-01, GCISD's 46.7 percent of economically disadvantaged students provides $604 in Compensatory and Title I federal funds per student eligible for free and reduced-price meals.
While every school business official knows this relationship exists, few are aggressively involved in assisting the food service staff and schools to streamline the process, educate the parents and students to the benefits of the program, or launch campaigns to encourage participation.
A separate form must be completed for each child in the program. Some school districts using a single family application have reduced the amount of labor and paper handled during the process. Other districts have also increased identification through the convenience of one application form per family.
Some of the most successful programs use the following techniques:
Family identification - If a parent fills out a form for one child, all of the siblings in the same household are automatically qualified;
Direct certification - Some districts do not require families to complete an application for the federal free and reduced-price meal programs if they are pre-certified as eligible by the Texas Department of Human Services through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program;
Incentive awards - Giving prizes to students and parents for completing an eligibility application. Houston ISD placed all of the applicants' names in a hat, and drew for prizes, with the top prize a television. Some of the prizes were donated by local businesses, and some were purchased from the food services budget;
Advertising campaigns - Billboards, posters, and flyers extol the virtue of the free and reduced-price meal program, and encourage participation;
Campus-based at-risk budgeting - Principals are encouraged to aggressively qualify eligible students because funds for at-risk programs in their campus budget depend on the number of identified students. In the Texarkana ISD, for example, principals are motivated to identify every eligible child for the program because their campus' Compensatory and Title I budget is linked directly to the number of children identified in the program; and
Parental assistance - Providing all parents a user-friendly form and campus-based assistance to complete the forms. This approach can be critical for non-English speaking or illiterate parents. The El Paso ISD provides applications in both English and Spanish. Other districts have staff available during registration and the first days of school to help parents read and complete paperwork.
Recommendation 33:
Aggressively seek to identify all students eligible for free and reduced-price meals.
Using family application forms would allow a family to complete one application for all their children enrolled in GCISD and can help to increase the number of students identified for free or reduced-price meals, increasing the federal funds received by the district. The family application would reduce handling, the possibility of errors due to multiple processing and labor time involved.
Parents should be provided with campus-based assistance for completing the forms. This will include sufficient staffing during registration and the first day of school to help parents read and complete paperwork to reduce errors that could hinder the approval process.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent, director of Business and Finance and the director of Food Services meet to discuss ways to aggressively increase the identification of students for free and reduced-price meals. September 2001 2. The superintendent, director of Business and Finance and the director of Food Services discuss the possibility of using an advertising campaign or prize incentives to increase certification of students for free and reduced-price meals. September 2001 3. The director of Business and Finance and the director of Food Services design a family application form that can be scanned into a computer. October 2001 4. The director of Food Services implements the use of the family application forms. January 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
In 2000-01, GCISD's enrollment was 1,151 students. If 2 percent, or 23 students (1,151 students X .02) were identified as eligible through aggressive follow up and streamlined certification processes, the district would receive $13,892 in additional Compensatory and Title I funding based on $604 per student (23 students x $604 = $13,892).
Because compensatory education enrollment is based on the prior-year six-month average of eligible students, new eligible students would not entitle the district to additional compensatory funds on those students until 2002-03.
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Aggressively seek to identify all students eligible for free and reduced-price meals. $0 $13,892 $13,892 $13,892 $13,892 FINDING
Only 20 percent of GCISD students eat breakfast on campus. Exhibit 4-21provides breakfast participation rates for the district.
Exhibit 4-21 Source: GCISD Food Services Department, October 2000.
GCISD Breakfast Participation Rates By School
October 2000
Grade
LevelAverage Daily
AttendanceParticipation Participation
RateElementary/intermediate school 831 178 21.4% High school 306 50 16.3% District 1,137 228 20.1% Several studies prove breakfast is good for students. One of the most quoted is a 1998 study by Tufts University School of Nutrition Science researchers. It showed that children who participated in the National School Breakfast Program performed better on standardized tests, and attended school and arrived on time more often than children who did not participate. Also, studies by the Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the state of Minnesota found that children who ate breakfast performed better academically and socially.
Even some districts that do not provide a daily breakfast program make a point to provide breakfast to all students on days when they take the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test.
Several districts offer breakfast programs. Aldine ISD has an innovative program at two high schools where students pick up breakfast bags after the first period and eat breakfast during the first few minutes of the next period, which are reserved for announcements and administrative tasks. Mount Pleasant ISD, a district with more than 4,000 students, offers a second-breakfast program during the activity period, which added $1,371 a month during the first year of the program.
Recommendation 34:
Develop strategies to increase breakfast participation at both campuses.
GCISD could provide elementary school students with breakfast during the first half-hour of the day which is usually used for administrative tasks by teachers, or during the second period, as at Aldine ISD. Secondary students may be best served through a "grab and go" type program where sack meals are available in kiosks or in home room.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The Food Service director works with principals and administrators to determine the best method for increasing breakfast participation. September 2001 2. The Food Service director prepares and distributes menus and notices to parents and students about the new breakfast programs. October 2001 3. The principals announce the breakfast programs to all students and encourage participation. October 2001 FISCAL IMPACT
Overall breakfast participation is estimated to increase by at least 10 percent from its average daily participation of 228, or 22 additional breakfast meals (228 x .10). Assuming that 46.7 percent of the additional students participating in the breakfast program would be eligible for free or reduced-price breakfasts, 12 students would pay full price ($.50) and 10 students would pay the reduced-price ($.30). This would generate $1,611 annually from direct student payment: $1,074 from students paying full price (12 students x $.50 x 179 days) plus $537 from students paying the reduced-price (10 students x $.30 x 179 days).
Additional federal funds would be provided to the district based on the breakfast reimbursement rates shown in Exhibit 4-17. This fiscal impact again assumes that 12 students would pay the full price and 10 students would be eligible for free or reduced-prices. The federal reimbursement rate for full-price breakfasts is $.21 per meal and $.82 for reduced-priced breakfasts. The total additional annual revenue would be $1,919: $451 for the full price reimbursements (12 students x $.21 x 179 days) plus $1,468 for the reduced-price reimbursements (10 students x $.82 x 179 days).
Total additional revenue would be $3,530 ($1,611 + $1,919). Additional costs would be approximately 40 percent of sales based on district food cost analysis, or $644 ($1,611 x .40).
Annual net revenue would be $2,886 ($3,530 - $644 = $2,886).
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Develop strategies to increase breakfast participation at both campuses. $2,886 $2,886 $2,886 $2,886 $2,886 FINDING
Excessive labor costs have caused the GCISD Food Services to operate at a deficit, as shown in Exhibit 4-22. GCISD must use local funds to support Food Services operations.
Exhibit 4-22 Source: GCISD director of Business and Finance, April 2001.
Food Services Revenue and Expenditures
1997-1998 Through 1999-2000
Revenues 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Category Revenues Local revenue $123,142 $116,651 $110,248 State matching 5,200 5,000 4,800 Federal revenue 176,541 180,209 185,351 Total Revenues $304,883 $301,860 $300,399 Expenditures Payroll $120,593 $121,163 $121,878 Purchased and contracted services 5,797 4,988 4,003 Supplies and materials 198,466 199,549 200,317 Other operating expenses 1,971 691 319 Capital outlay 0 0 0 Total Expenditures $326,827 $326,391 $326,517 Profit/(Loss) ($21,944) ($24,531) ($26,118) An analysis of meals per labor hour (MPLH) identified excessive labor costs. MPLH is a standard performance measure for food services in schools, hospitals, restaurants and similar operations. MPLH is the number of meal equivalents served in a given period of time divided by the total hours worked during that period. Meal equivalents are lunches plus an equivalent number of breakfasts and a la carte sales. GCISD uses the following conversion rates for meal equivalents.
- A la carte Elementary school $1.35 in sales = one meal equivalent
- A la carte High school $1.55 in sales = one meal equivalent
- A la carte Adult $1.90 in sales = one meal equivalent
- Breakfast All locations Two breakfasts = one meal equivalent
TEA does not set standards for meal equivalents for school districts or pre-approve meal equivalent rates. School districts set their own meal equivalent rates. The average daily meal equivalents served by GCISD Food Services is 1,017, as shown in Exhibit 4-23.
Exhibit 4-23 Source: GCISD Food Services director, April 2001.
GCISD Average Daily Meal Equivalents
2000-01
Meal Equivalents
(Breakfast)Meal Equivalents
(A la Carte)Meal Equivalents
(Lunch)Total Meal
Equivalents211 150 656 1,017 Exhibit 4-24 shows the cafeteria workers that perform Food Services operations at the campus level.
Exhibit 4-24 Source: GCISD Food Services director, April 2001.
GCISD Cafeteria Staffing
2000-01
Position Hours
per DayHigh School Food services director 8.0 Manager/main line server 8.0 Snack bar manager 6.5 Snack bar prep/server 7.5 Bread cook/cashier 7.0 Meat cook/server 7.0 Total High School 44.0 Elementary/Intermediate School Manager/server 8.0 Secretary/elementary cashier 7.0 Meat cook/server 7.5 Vegetable cook/server 7.5 Bread/dessert cook/server 7.5 Dishwasher 7.5 Total Elementary/Intermediate School 45.0 Total District 89.0 TSPR used the guidelines in Exhibit 4-25 to evaluate GCISD's staffing structure. The conventional system includes preparing food from raw vegetables on the premises, using some bakery bread and prepared pizza and washing dishes. The convenience system uses the maximum amount of processed food and disposable items. GCISD employees use the convenience system.
Exhibit 4-25 Source: School Foodservice Management for 21st Century, 5th Edition,
Recommended Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH)
December 2000
Number of Meal Equivalents Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Conventional System Convenience System Low/High Low/High Up to 100 8/10 10/12 101-150 9/11 11/13 151-200 10-11/12 12/14 201-300 13/15 15/16 301-400 14/16 16/18 401-500 14/17 18/19 501-600 15/17 18/19 601-700 16/18 19/20 701-800 17/19 20/22 801-900 18/20 21/23 901+ 19/21 22/23
Dorothy Pannell-MartinIf the MPLH rate is higher than the recommended rate shown in the exhibit, either the number of meals served is low or the number of hours worked is high. The number of hours worked is a function of two variables: the number of staff employed and the hours per worker. Both variables are controllable.
With 89 hours worked per day, GCISD Food Services is staffed to serve a much higher number of meal equivalents than the 1,017 it averages per day, as shown in Exhibit 4-26.
Exhibit 4-26 Source: GCISD Food Services director, April 2001; Dorothy V. Pannell, Controlling Costs in the Food Services Industry.
GCISD Meals Per Labor Hour
December 2000
School Total Meals Served Total Hours Worked MPLH Industry Standard MPLH MPLH Variance +/(-) High school 3,485 616 5.65 14 (8.35) Elementary/intermediate school 10,855 630 17.23 18 (0.77) Total All Schools 14,340 1,246 11.51 N/A (9.12) The district does not monitor its MPLH. To do so, it could use standards recommended by numerous experts, led by Dorothy Pannell-Martin in School Food Services Management, 5th edition, and including Managing Child Nutrition Programs: Leadership for Excellence and Food Services Management by Checklist: A Handbook of Control Techniques.
To achieve a MPLH within accepted standards, a school food services operation might have to reduce the number of staff or the hours worked per employee. Exhibit 4-27 shows the number of hours worked at each school compared to industry-recommended hours for the midpoint between the "low" and "high" ranking of the conventional system of 14 MPLH for the high school cafeteria and 18 MPLH for the elementary/intermediate school cafeteria. As the exhibit shows, the district employs four excess FTEs for the number of meals served.
Exhibit 4-27 Source: GCISD Food Services director, April 2001; Dorothy V. Pannell, Controlling Costs in the Food Services Industry.
GCISD MPLH Comparison
December 2000
School Meals
Served
DailyHours
Worked
DailyAllowable
Hours
at Standard
MPLHHours
Above
(Below)
StandardEquivalent
FTEs
@
7 HoursHigh school 249 44 18 26 4 Elementary/intermediate school 775 45 43 2 0 Total 1,024 89 61 28 4 Recommendation 35:
Increase employee productivity and reduce associated payroll costs.
To do this, Food Services can:
- Establish employee productivity standards for each cafeteria to achieve 14 meals per labor hour.
- Replace full-time food services positions with part-time positions where feasible.
- Expand the use of prepared items versus scratch cooking.
- Implement a hiring freeze and also rely on natural attrition to achieve the recommended staffing level.
- Provide more self-serve options for high school students.
GCISD should be able to prepare 1,024 meals with 61 labor hours. This would save the district 28 hours per day. MPLH should be monitored annually to determine the staffing levels required at each cafeteria.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The Food Service director monitors the MPLH at each school and compares this to recommended rates. October 2001 2. The Food Service director establishes a staffing plan for each school based on the MPLH. October 2001 3. Through attrition, transfers, or hiring, the Food Services director establishes the required staffing pattern to serve the necessary meal equivalents. November 2001 - May 2002 4. The Food Service director monitors the MPLH monthly to ensure adequate, but not excessive staffing. Ongoing FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated savings from staffing reductions is based on the comparison of GCISD's MPLH with the most conservative "low" ranking of the conventional system, shown in Exhibit 4-25. The actual savings achieved could be greater once the district develops its own MPLH.
Reducing staff to industry-recommended standards would reduce labor costs by $27,817 for salaries ($5.55 per hour x 7 hours per day x 179 days x 4 employees). Employee benefits would be $9,672, which includes unemployment of $26 ($27,817 salaries x .00093) and workers compensation of $9,646 ($2,411.40 per employee x 4 employees).
The total annual savings would be $37,489 ($27,817 salaries + $9,672 benefits). The first year savings are estimated at one-half of the annual savings while the district transitions to the appropriate staffing levels ($37,489 / 2 = $18,745.)
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Increase employee productivity and reduce associated payroll costs. $18,745 $37,489 $37,489 $37,489 $37,489 FINDING
The district does not have an equipment replacement plan.
Most of the equipment in the elementary/intermediate school cafeteria is more than 20 years old. Though usable, the equipment is inefficient and increases production time for cafeteria workers. The district cannot afford to replace all of the old and inefficient equipment.
Newer, more efficient equipment would increase productivity, reduce operating costs and enable cafeterias to prepare menu items that present equipment does not accommodate. For example, ranges with only surface heat cannot be used for baking, and small mixers increase the hours needed to prepare large quantities.
Recommendation 36:
Establish an equipment replacement plan based on priority.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The Food Service director and the director of Business and Finance coordinate to identify food preparation equipment that is most critical to the efficiency of Food Services operations and is in need of repair and replacement. October 2001 2. The Food Service director and the director of Business and Finance estimate costs to replace or repair equipment and present it to the superintendent as part of the annual budgeting process. March 2002 3. The superintendent and director of Business and Finance consider the overall needs of the district and prepare a capital outlay budget priority list including the Food Services equipment. April 2002 4. Food Services equipment is repaired or replaced, as funds are available. Ongoing FISCAL IMPACT
Understanding the district's fiscal constraints, the food services budget should reflect at least a minimal contribution each year for the repair and replacement of aging equipment. An amount of $2,000 annually is estimated to begin the process. As the food service fund becomes self sufficient, this amount should be increased according to the available fund balance in the food service account.
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Establish an equipment replacement plan based on priority. ($2,000) ($2,000) ($2,000) ($2,000) ($2,000) FINDING
GCISD does not survey students, parents or faculty routinely about food quality, quantity, prices, or other food services operations issues.
TSPR conducted community meetings in GCISD and received negative comments about Food Services. As shown in Exhibit 4-28, in a TSPR survey of students, teachers and parents about Food Services operations, respondents said the food does not look or taste good, students do not have enough time to eat, and they wait in line longer than 10 minutes.
Exhibit 4-28 Source: TSPR Surveys, March 2001.
Food Services Survey Results
March 2001
Survey
QuestionStrongly
Agree/AgreeNo
OpinionDisagree/
Strongly DisagreeThe cafeteria's food looks and tastes good. Teachers 20.8% 24.5% 54.7% Parents 22.3% 20.6% 57.1% Students 6.1% 34.7% 59.2% Students have enough time to eat Parents 38.9% 8.7% 52.4% Students 24.4% 2.0% 73.6% Students wait in food lines no longer than 10 minutes Teachers 56.6% 15.1% 28.3% Parents 47.7% 32.5% 19.8% Students 24.5% 8.2% 67.3% Recommendation 37:
Conduct surveys of students, parents and faculty about food quality, quantity, price, variety, nutrition and other areas of food operations and implement corrective action where needed.
Food Services staff could have students, parents and faculty conduct taste tests to provide feedback on the menu. Schools could place comment boxes in each cafeteria. Also, schools could give students and faculty short questionnaires to take home or to class.
Based on survey results and suggestions, GCISD's Food Service director and cafeteria managers should develop and implement corrective action and do follow-up surveys to learn whether actions taken were appropriate and adequate.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The Food Service director prepares a short survey for students, parents and faculty. November 2001 2. The Food Service director distributes the survey to students at the first class period and gives it to parents and faculty via the district mail system. November 2001 3. The Food Service director and the cafeteria managers compile the surveys to determine changes needed or wanted in food quality, quantity, variety, and price. December 2001 4. The Food Service department makes adjustments that are feasible and affordable and solicits feedback from students, parents and faculty. Ongoing FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
The district does not formally recognize cafeteria workers who obtain certification from the Texas School Food Services Association certification program. Cafeteria workers can take courses to obtain certification at the following levels:
- Level 1 Apprentice
- Level 2 Technician
- Level 3 Specialist
- Level 4 Manager
- Level 5 Supervisor
- Level 6 Coordinator
- Level 7 Administrator
Cafeteria staff are encouraged to obtain and advance in their levels of certification, but the district does not reward the staff who obtain certification, which requires considerable time and effort from the Food Services worker and benefits the district by providing operations efficiency, cross-training and better food.
San Angelo ISD provides the following incentive pay scale for food services workers who obtain the advanced certifications listed above. Certification pay is distributed to employees who provide a copy of their certificate to the Food Services office. Payments are distributed once per semester.
Level 1 $ 50
Level 2 $100
Level 3 $150
Level 4 $200
Level 5 and above $250Recommendation 38:
Develop and implement a plan to recognize cafeteria staff who obtain certification.
The recognition plan should include monetary stipends upon completion of classes.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The Food Services director, cafeteria managers and the Human Resources department develop incentives to recognize cafeteria staff who obtain certification. November 2001 2. The Food Services director implements the incentives. December 2001 FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this recommendation is dependent upon the number of cafeteria staff that complete certification programs annually. The estimated annual cost for providing a $100 stipend to one-half of the 12 cafeteria workers would be $600.
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Develop and implement a plan to recognize cafeteria staff who obtain certification. ($600) ($600) ($600) ($600) ($600) FINDING
Individual cafeteria managers are not provided with profit-and-loss statements and do not know whether their cafeterias are profitable. They are not held accountable for the financial operations of Food Services at their schools.
Dorothy Pannell-Martin, in Controlling Costs in the Food Services Industry, 1998, recommends five financial and operating reports to distribute to cafeteria managers so they can monitor and evaluate operations and take corrective action needed:
- Budget: spells out management's ideals, goals and objectives in financial terms.
- Profit-and-loss statement: accumulative report that shows how the operation has been doing financially over a period of time.
- Balance sheet: provides a snapshot of how the operation is doing at a specific time, tells what the operation is worth and describes its assets (facilities and equipment).
- Cash flow statement: shows the cash inflow and outflow for a period of time.
- Performance ratios and trends, including:
- Food cost as percentage of sales
- Labor cost as percentage of sales
- Break-even point
- Inventory turnover
- Participation rates
- Average daily labor costs
- Average daily food costs.
The key to profitability in food services is to control costs. Managers need to know what the costs are, what they should be and how to keep them low.
Recommendation 39:
Compile and distribute accurate, detailed and useful school-specific financial and performance reports to cafeteria managers on a quarterly basis.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. he Food Services director meets with the director of Business and Finance to develop detailed budgets and financial reports for each school. November 2001 2. The Food Services director and the director of Business and Finance meet with cafeteria managers to explain the budget reports that will be provided and solicit feedback about other useful managerial reports. December 2001 3. The Food Services director and cafeteria managers hold quarterly meetings to review performance, discuss corrective actions needed and share best practices. Quarterly FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
