OPERATIONS
This chapter reviews the operations of the Wall Independent School District's (WISD's) operations in four sections:
- A. Facilities Use and Management
- B. Computers and Technology
- C. Transportation
- D. Food Services
D. FOOD SERVICES
School food service operations are responsible for providing students and staff an appealing and nutritious breakfast and lunch at a reasonable cost in an environment that is safe, clean and accessible. Each of these responsibilities must be accomplished in compliance with applicable federal and state regulations and local board policy.
The goals of a successful food services operation are to provide customer satisfaction and to contain costs. The first step in managing a financially successful operation is to know the financial objectives and goals of the school board. The next step is to have an efficient organization and a good accounting system.
Food service operations at WISD are organized under the Food Services Department. The Food Services Department operates three cafeterias: one at the elementary school, one at the high school and one at Fairview Alternative Campus. The high school cafeteria employs three full-time staff including the cafeteria manager. The elementary school cafeteria employs four full-time staff. The alternative school has one part-time employee. Each cafeteria manager reports to the principal of his or her campus. The principals report directly to the superintendent.
The WISD school board adopted the following amounts for cafeteria meals beginning in the 1998-99 school year (Exhibit 4-16).
Exhibit 4-16 Source: WISD.
Cafeteria Meal Prices
Lunch Breakfast Adults $2.00 Adults $2.00 Grades 6-12 $1.75 Students $1.00 Grades K-5 $1.50 Reduced-price $0.30 Reduced lunch $0.40 WISD participates in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs and receives reimbursement for meals served to low-income families. Exhibit 4-17 summarizes the reimbursement rates for 2000-01.
Exhibit 4-17 Source: TEA memo.
Federal Reimbursement Rates
2000-01
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 (Additional) $0.21 Free (Additional) $0.21 In October 2000, 31.5 percent of the district enrollment was approved for free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. In these programs, students who live in households where the household income is less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level receive a reduced-price meal (Exhibit 4-18).
Exhibit 4-18
WISD Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Participation Rates
April 2001
District Average Daily Attendance 905 Number Eligible 285 Percent Eligible 31.5% WISD Food Services Department, April 2001.
Students receive a free meal if the household income is less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level.
FINDING
The district is potentially losing state compensatory education funds by not identifying all students who would be eligible for free and reduced-price lunches.
The process used by WISD to identify and enroll students for the free and reduced-price lunch and breakfast programs consists of sending applications to students' homes twice a year. Parents and guardians are responsible for completing, signing and returning the forms to WISD administrators.
Identifying students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunches and breakfasts is a difficult process. Parents are sometimes reluctant to complete program applications because of pride or because they may not understand the forms. Also, students may not want to be identified as economically disadvantaged and request that parents leave them off the applications.
By failing to identify all students who would be eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch and breakfast programs through the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program, school districts are losing federal Compensatory and Title I funds. These funds flow to a school district based on the number of students approved for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program.
Successful programs have adopted some of the following techniques:
- Family identification - If a family 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 lunch and breakfast programs if the students are pre-certified as eligible by the Texas Department of Human Services through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
- Incentive awards - A school conducts a contest open to all students regardless of the family economic status and gives prizes to students and parents for completing an eligibility application. There is no stigma attached to the application process since all students could complete an application and be eligible for the prizes.
- Advertising campaigns - Billboards, posters and flyers are used to disseminate information about the program.
- Parental assistance - A district provides parents assistance in completing applications. The technique is critical for non-English speaking or illiterate parents. El Paso ISD provides applications and assistance in both English and Spanish. Other districts have staff available during registration and the first days of school to help parents read and complete the applications.
WISD receives $621.42 in Compensatory and Title I funds for each student who is approved for free and reduced-price lunches and breakfasts. An approved student does not have to ever eat a meal provided through the program for the district to receive funds for that child. The only requirement is that the student is eligible and approved.
Recommendation 36:
Develop strategies to increase the number of students identified as eligible for free and reduced-price meals.
Consider the techniques discussed above and adopt and implement the processes and techniques that best fit the WISD community.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent and principals establish a marketing program to increase awareness of the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs through media available to the district. October 2001 2. The superintendent and principals provide staff to assist parents in completing applications during registration and to be available to answer questions in person and by telephone both in English and Spanish. October 2001 3. The superintendent and principals initiate a contest to award prizes for students submitting completed applications. October 2001 FISCAL IMPACT
The district could receive $17,710 in additional compensatory education funds if the number of eligible students was increased by just 10 percent (.10 x 285 x $621.42 = $17,710).
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Develop strategies to increase the number of students identified as eligible for free and reduced price lunch participation at all campuses. $17,710 $17,710 $17,710 $17,710 $17,710 FINDING
The WISD food services program is operating at a deficit (Exhibit 4-19). Local funds must be used to support the food services operation.
Exhibit 4-19 Source: WISD Director of Business and Finance.
Food Service Revenue and Expenditures
1997-98 through 1999-2000
1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Revenues $191,257 $212,152 $226,783 Expenditures $207,579 $230,500 $244,326 Profit/(Loss) ($16,322) ($18,348) ($17,543) Most of the cost of operating the Food Services Department is associated with the labor costs of preparing and serving meals. A WISD cafeteria worker is paid on average $7.48 per hour for seven hours per day for 179 days. Cafeteria workers also have benefits that amount to about 16 percent of their salary. Exhibit 4-20 shows the number of and hours worked for cafeteria workers who perform food service operations at the campus level.
Exhibit 4-20 Source: WISD Food Services director.
WISD Cafeteria Staffing
2000-01
Position Hours per Day High School Cafeteria manager 8 Cafeteria worker 7 Cafeteria worker 7 Elementary School Cafeteria manager 8 Cafeteria worker 7 Cafeteria worker 7 Cafeteria worker 7 Fairview Alternative Campus 7 Total 58 Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) is a standard performance measure of efficiency for school districts, hospitals, restaurants and other food service 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 breakfast and a la carte sales. Usually the meal equivalents are approximately equal to the dollar value of a complete reimbursable meal. TSPR used the guidelines provided in Exhibit 4-21 to evaluate WISD's staffing structure.
Exhibit 4-21 Source: School Foodservices Management, Dorothy Pannell-Martin, 1999
Recommended Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH)
April 1999
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 12/14 251-300 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 The conventional system of food delivery includes preparing food on the premises and using washable dishes. The convenience system uses the maximum amount of processed food and disposable items. TSPR used the conventional system to evaluate food service productivity since it is a more conservative approach than the convenience system.
WISD's Food Services Department's MPLH are less than recommended in all of its cafeterias. Exhibit 4-22 illustrates WISD's MPLH for each campus kitchen compared to the industry standard. If the MPLH rate is higher than the recommended rate, 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.
Exhibit 4-22 Source: WISD Food Services Department, Dorothy V. Pannell, Controlling Costs in the Foodservice Industry.
WISD Meals per Labor Hour
February 2000
School Total Meals Served Total Hours Worked WISD Reported MPLH Industry
Rec. MPLHMPLH
Variance
+/(-)High School 4,365 440 9.22 14 4.78 Elementary School 6,702 580 11.65 15 3.44 Fairview Alternative Campus 462 140 3.30 8 4.70 Total 11,529 1,300 9.94 N/A 12.92 In order to achieve recommended MPLH, a school food service operation would have to reduce the number of staff or the hours worked per employee. Exhibit 4-23 shows the number of hours worked at each campus compared to the industry-recommended hours. The district employs 2.5 excess FTEs for the number of meals served.
Exhibit 4-23 Source: WISD Food Services Department, Dorothy V. Pannell, Controlling Costs in the Foodservice Industry.
WISD Food Services Department
MPLH Comparison
February 2000
School Meals Served
DailyHours Worked
DailyAllowable
Hours at Standard MPLHHours Above (Below) Standard Equivalent FTEs
HoursHigh School 218 22 15 7 1.0 Elementary School 335 29 22 7 1.0 Fairview Alternative Campus 23 7 3 4 0.5 Total 576 58 40 18 2.5 Deficit spending in food service requires the district to replace lost dollars with general revenues that would otherwise be available for instruction. Improving productivity is a key factor in eliminating the district's deficit in the food service operation.
Recommendation 37:
Establish Meals Per Labor Hour standards and modify staffing levels at each campus to meet industry recommendations.
The Food Services Department should develop a standard MPLH for each campus based on the district's unique factors affecting productivity such as staffing levels, kitchen design, pre-processed foods, type of menu, type of equipment, training and skill level of employees, degree of automation and the number of personal breaks.
Once the district has a standard MPLH for each campus, the district should compare its actual MPLH to the standard. Staffing levels may need to be adjusted to reflect the appropriate staffing level determined by the district.
In addition, meals served at Fairview Alternative campus could be prepared at either the high school or elementary school cafeteria and transported in heated compartments to Fairview.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The cafeteria managers develop campus-specific MPLH standards. October 2001 2. The cafeteria managers develop a plan to increase productivity. October 2001 3. The cafeteria managers implement the plans for improving productivity. November 2001 4. The cafeteria managers evaluate the productivity of each campus monthly according to the MPLH standards. December 2001 5. The cafeteria managers and the business manager develop a plan to reduce labor costs at campuses that exceed the MPLH standards. January 2002 6. The cafeteria managers evaluate the productivity monthly. Ongoing 7. The cafeteria managers modify the staffing levels at each campus. June 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
By applying MPLH standards, two staff positions could potentially be eliminated. Savings are recognized in the Financial Management chapter as a part of overall staffing reductions.
FINDING
Lunch serving times do not provide sufficient time and space for all students to eat their meals in a comfortable manner.
High school students are all served during one lunch period. Seniors eat first, followed by juniors, sophomores and freshman. The cafeteria manager stated that few freshman eat lunch in the cafeteria because there is not enough time and there is not enough room. Students were observed standing against the wall, holding trays and trying to eat. The cafeteria manager estimates that at least 40 additional freshmen would eat if given time and space.
Recommendation 38:
Stagger lunch serving times to accommodate all grade levels.
Provide two lunch periods of 30-40 minutes each. Seniors and juniors could be served during one period and sophomores and freshman in the other period.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The school principals meet with the cafeteria managers to develop a serving schedule that would accommodate all students and would not be disruptive to the curriculum schedule. October 2001 2. The principals and faculty develop class schedules to facilitate two lunch periods. November 2001 3. The superintendent reviews and approves the class schedules and lunch periods. December 2001 4. The principals announce the change to lunch periods and class schedules to students for the following semester. January 2002 5. Amended class schedules and serving periods are implemented. February 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is based on the assumption that 40 additional students will be served lunches at the high school. The annual additional revenue would be $12,600 (40 meals x $1.75 per meal x 180 days). The cost to serve 40 additional meals per day is based on food cost of 40 percent of the price, or $.70 per meal. Total annual cost would be $5,040 ($.70 x 40 meals x 180 days). No additional labor would be required. The net additional revenue for the first year would be one half of the normal annual net revenue since the program would not be implemented until January 2002. Annual net revenue would be $7,560 ($12,600 - $5,040).
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Stagger lunch serving times to accommodate all grade levels. $3,780 $7,560 $7,560 $7,560 $7,560 FINDING
Cafeteria managers do not receive financial and performance information from the business office.
The Food Services Department reports a loss from food service operations annually. However, individual cafeteria managers are not held accountable for the financial operations of food service operations at their campuses. The cafeteria managers are only held accountable for monitoring inventory levels, production and overall revenues of their cafeterias. Revenue information is compiled by campuses through the district's point-of-sale system, but expenditure information is not available for each campus because the point-of-sale system is not linked with inventory, payroll and the purchase order system.
Information used by the Food Services Department to monitor campus performance is compiled monthly and includes:
- Average Daily Participation (ADP);
- days in operation;
- number of Type A lunches served;
- regular price
- reduced price
- free
- labor cost; and
- Federal reimbursement amount.
Breakfast sales information is also provided to the cafeteria managers.
These reports provide fragmented financial performance information and do not provide a true profit and loss by campus. Districts must take action to replicate good performance and improve the operations that are performing poorly, but without campus-specific information, individual campus deficiencies are not conspicuous. Timely, accurate and useful financial reports are critical to the continued profitability of the WISD food service operation.
The key to operating profitably in the food services market is to control costs. To control costs, managers need to know their costs, know what costs should be and how to keep prices low.
Dorothy Pannell-Martin in Controlling Costs in the Food Service Industry, 1998, recommends distributing five financial and operating reports to cafeteria managers to enable them to monitor, evaluate and take corrective action when appropriate. These five reports are:
- Budget - spells out management's ideals, goals and objectives in financial terms;
- Profit and loss statement - an accumulative report that indicates 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 point in time. It tells the operation's worth and describes the assets (facilities and equipment) of the operation;
- Cash flow statement - shows the cash inflow and outflow for a period of time; and
- Performance ratios and trends, including:
- food cost as percent of sales
- labor cost as percent of sales
- break-even point
- inventory turnover
- participation rates
- average daily labor costs
- average daily food costs.
Recommendation 39:
Compile and distribute accurate, detailed and useful campus-specific financial and performance reports to cafeteria managers on a quarterly basis.
Cafeteria managers should be held accountable for the financial operations of their respective campuses. Cafeteria managers and staff should use these reports to monitor, evaluate and take corrective action as needed to address deficiencies and share best practices.
The point-of-sale system should be enhanced to include cost of goods sold information, such as inventory and purchases.
Annual performance goals should be set for each campus cafeteria and should focus on improvement.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The cafeteria managers meet with the business manager to develop detailed budgets and financial reports for each campus. October 2001 2. The business manager meets with cafeteria managers to explain the budgets and financial reports that will be provided and to solicit feedback regarding other useful managerial reports. November 2001 3. The cafeteria managers hold quarterly meetings to review performance discuss needed corrective actions and share best practices. Quarterly FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
The Food Services Department does not solicit feedback from students about quality, taste, variety, price or quantity of menu items served. TSPR conducted community meetings in WISD and received a number of negative comments about Food Services.
In a survey of principals and assistant principals, teachers and parents about Food Services operations, respondents said that the food looks and tastes good, students have enough time to eat and students do not wait in line longer than 10 minutes. However, 50 percent of students surveyed responded that students do not have enough time to eat (Exhibit 4-23).
Exhibit 4-24 Source: TSPR Surveys, March 2001.
Food Services Survey Results
March 2001
Survey Question Strongly Agree/Agree No Opinion Disagree/
Strongly DisagreeThe cafeteria's food looks and tastes good. Teachers 68.6% 17.4% 14.0% Parents 52.1% 23.8% 24.1% Students 34.2% 25.0% 40.8% Students have enough time to eat. Parents 65.4% 11.5% 23.1% Students 38.4% 11.6% 50.0% Students wait in food lines no longer than 10 minutes. Teachers 85.9% 5.9% 8.2% Parents 61.4% 22.3% 16.3% Students 41.6% 22.5% 35.9% Interviews with cafeteria managers and staff revealed that the cafeteria workers were aware of the problems regarding the amount of time students waited in line.
Recommendation 40:
Solicit input from students, parents and faculty regarding food quality, quantity, price, variety, nutrition and any 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. Comment boxes could be located in each cafeteria. Also, students and faculty should be given short questionnaires to take home or to the classroom.
Based on the results of surveys and suggestions, the cafeteria managers should develop and implement corrective actions and conduct follow up surveys to determine if the actions taken were proper and adequate.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The cafeteria managers create food taste-tests and provide suggestion boxes in a conspicuous location in each cafeteria. November 2001 2. The cafeteria managers develop survey questionnaires for students, parents, teachers and administrators. December 2001 3. The cafeteria managers coordinates with the central office for distribution of food service surveys with the annual district surveys of parents. January 2002 4. The cafeteria managers compile results of taste tests and suggestion boxes monthly and review survey results in the fall and spring. February 2002 5. The cafeteria managers develop and implement corrective actions. March 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
There are no incentives for cafeteria workers to obtain certification.
The Texas School Food Service Association has a certification program developed to train food service workers in the areas of school food service programs. Certification courses are offered for 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 eligible for membership in the Texas School Food Service Association (TSFSA). The district pays for the certification courses but does not provide official recognition or advancement to workers who complete certification programs.
Recommendation 41:
Develop and implement a plan to recognize cafeteria workers who complete certification classes.
The recognition plan should provide recognition, the opportunity for advancement and monetary stipends upon completion of classes.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND TIMELINE
1. The Food Services director and cafeteria managers and the business manager develop incentives to recognize cafeteria staff who completes certification training. October 2001 FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this recommendation would be dependent upon how many cafeteria staff complete the certification programs annually. Assuming all cafeteria staff completed certification classes, the estimated annual cost for providing a $100 stipend to each of the eight cafeteria staff would be $800 ($100 x 8 staff).
Recommendation 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Develop and implement a plan to recognize cafeteria staff who complete certification classes. ($800) ($800) ($800) ($800) ($800)