An assessment of performance measures in child nutrition programs

Abstract

I would like to extend a special thanks to my family, professors, friends, and coworkers that made this educational journey a possibility. From my grandfather, Louie Field who many years ago made education important and special by taking his grandchildren to lunch when we made the honor roll in high school; to my parents, Wayne and Lois Northway, whose question was not if I was going to college, but which college was I going to attend-it is their love and support that inspired in me the value of education. This journey would not have been possible without my husband, Roger, who not only provided love and support, but also spent countless hours researching articles, developing a SFS director's database, helping me understand statistics, and making meals or cleaning the house while I studied. Even though my children, Stacy and Will were not a home, they were of immense help as they provided encouragement, support, and love as well as proofing papers or presentations and calling school districts for the director's name and e-mail address. Thanks to my brothers and sisters who understood when I was unable to be with them because I was studying.

Implementation of school districts' food safety plans and perceptions of support for food safety and training in child nutrition programs in one USDA region

“…Districts indicated types of service methods used with multiple responses. Traditional serving method was reported as used most often in the district (81.3%); these findings are consistent with those noted by SNA in 2008, as well as by Hanna (2008). In the traditional serving method, staff serves thus controlling portions of all menu items listed as a reimbursable meal to the student.…”

“…9%) of the responding school foodservice programs were self-operated. This is lower than the 86.2% reported by Hanna (2008), the 93.5% reported by Story (2008), and the 97.3% found by SNA (2011c). District FSDs responded as participating in federal child nutrition SBP and NSLP (90.1% and 99.4%, respectively).…”

“…reported by Story (2008) but lower than the 95% reported by Hanna (2008). The responding FSDs were primarily female (62.0%), lower than the 79.9% reported by Hanna, the 85.9%…”

“…Limitations of this production system include increased labor hours, availability of adequate space and equipment, and food safety concerns. Hanna (2008) found 93.3% of the 534 respondents in her survey of districts with 2,500 to 10,000 student enrollments indicated conventional systems were the most often used method of production. The literature review and findings from this study illustrate how districts will combine production systems, such as conventional production at some school buildings and satellite kitchens at others.…”

Where has all the labor gone? Capacity and value-added labor in school meals programs

“…Reversed, the formula can be used to predict labor needs. This measure, unfortunately, lacks a common definition (Cater, Conklin, & Cross, 2005;Hanna, 2008;Hwang & Sneed, 2004;Sherrin, Bednar, & Kwon, 2009), rendering it inadequate as a benchmarking tool. Further, MPLH is based on straight-line allocation of costs to meals, without regard for differences in labor necessary to produce meals requiring more preparation or for changes in the array of foods offered on a menu.…”