W h at ’s fo r
lunch
Volume #04
January 2013 Inside this Issue: New Guidelines Leave Students Hungry. pg 1-2
New Guidelines Leave Students
H u n g r y. written by Milt Miller, President at Milton Miller Consulting
In recent months much criticism has been leveled at the new Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act Guidelines for not providing enough food for students. This criticism has been especially pointed at student athletes and physically active students in middle and high school grades. The premise behind this is based on the fact that the new guidelines place maximums as well as minimums on grains, proteins and calories for reimbursable meals. Many school food professionals believe that these guidelines do not provide enough food and result in increased waste due to fruit or vegetables being mandated for a school lunch to be reimbursable. When I reflect on what is being stated in these concerns several thoughts come to mind that just do not seem to add up, the major one being the statement “less food with more waste.” Never fully understanding the concepts of more with less or less with more I have tried to break down this concept using the principals of good business sense, but have had little success. I look at a school cafeteria program as a business because it must be self sustainable and the goal is to not lose money or require subsidization when ever possible. In comparing the old guideline’s minimums with the new guideline’s maximums, with the exception of grains and calories and the fact there are more defined levels of distinction based on grade levels, the old minimums are not that different from the new maximums. This leaves me asking what some of these folks did in the past for athletes and physically active students that satisfied their hunger with about the same amount of food? Unless they were giving larger portions to these groups and not worrying about plate cost parameters, in order to satisfy them? The old regulations stated that for a school lunch to be reimbursable under offer verses served regulations, a student must be offered all five meal components (dairy, grains, fruit, vegetable, and protein) at a single unit price. The student had the right to choose whether he/she wanted to take 3, 4, or all 5 items to make a reimbursable
food service solutions ,Inc.
POS Software
Online Payments
Biometrics
USDA Eliminates Weekly Grain & Protein Maximums for 2012-2013 School Year pg 2 The Six Cents: Lunchroom IQ pg 3 USDA Has Released the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV pg 3 Revitalizing the School Lunch Line through Fingerprint Identification pg 4
Follow Us Online...
For feedback and article ideas or submissions please email: asmith@foodserve.com
F&R Funding
Foodco
Continued from page 1 lunch for the same single unit price. The new guidelines say the same thing with the addition of the statement that one of those items must be a fruit or vegetable. In speaking with many food service professionals, I have found that many of them view this new twist to mean they must force students to take an extra choice the students do not want. This they believe causes waste and additional cost. They have also scaled back their portion sizes without explaining them to the students or marketing their ala carte options of second entrees that could serve to give students the additional foods they are wanting. The ruling states that a reimbursable meal must meet the minimums and maximums to qualify for government subsidization. A second entrée is considered ala carte and is not part of the reimbursable meal. If second entrees and meals are marketed properly and even discounted with the purchase of a reimbursable lunch, sales could be increased and students would receive more food to satisfy their appetites. Many operators fail to take into consideration that the calories in a second entrée are not part of meeting the guideline of what makes a school lunch. Another argument against marketing additional items is that they are not available to lower income students. If one takes a look around the cafeteria they will see lower income students do purchase additional items, if not from the school cafeteria from vending machines or convenience stores. Why take these sales away from your program? These students do have some additional money due to the lower cost of their meals. This is especially evident at middle and high school levels. I am not a big supporter of junk foods but second entrees and extra juice or milk will give them the extras they want. If marketed properly extra entrees will satisfy the needs of older and more physically active students and increase the income of the food service program. Getting back to the O V S Guidelines, many operators believe that milk must be part of a reimbursable lunch. I have observed servers telling students that they must take milk with their meal when they already have enough components to meet the guidelines. This causes waste as well as increased plate cost. If operators offer a fresh fruit and vegetable choice, a canned fruit and vegetable choice, and choices of 100% fruit juice, they will be able to offer juice every day to their student customers. Many students will take juice over milk for their lunch beverage. This juice choice also serves as their fruit component. The proper amount of grains and protein combined with a 4 ounce juice meets the requirement for a school lunch. It also reduces the plate cost by the cost of the milk and cuts down on waste. This also keeps students from feeling they are being forced to take something they do not want. If they desire more food sell them an extra juice or a second entrée. The examples listed above are just a few ways to better market your program to your student customers. I also hope they assist operators to see that there really is not as much difference in the new guidelines from the old guidelines as far as the amount of food goes. The big difference to me is how this change has been viewed by operators as a negative one. These changes not only give us an opportunity to educate our students on the benefits of healthy eating habits, it also causes us to reinvent the marketing of our programs.
food service solutions ,Inc.
POS Software
Online Payments
USDA Eliminates Weekly Grain & Protein Maximums For 2012-2013 School Year Article from www.schoolnutrition.org During USDA’s annual State Agency Meeting, hosted by SNA, USDA officials announced the release of new guidance which eliminates the weekly maximums for grains and proteins under the new meal pattern for the remainder of the 2012-13 school year. Calorie maximums for school meals will remain in place. USDA also announced that new guidance on breakfast requirements will be released soon. SNA President Sandra Ford, SNS, who presented at the meeting, commented, “School nutrition professionals have faced significant menu planning, operating, financial challenges and more as a result of the new meal pattern requirements. USDA’s new guidance acknowledges those challenges and gives school meal programs more flexibility. By easing weekly maximums for grains and proteins but maintaining calorie limits, USDA protects the nutritional integrity of the new standards while giving school meal programs more time to design healthy menus that meet both the new standards and students’ tastes.” USDA has not announced whether these new flexibilities for grain and protein requirements will continue into the 2013-14 school year, but officials indicated they will continue to assess the requirements over the coming months. “SNA has been in close communication with USDA this school year, sharing the challenges and successes of SNA members throughout meal pattern implementation, including concerns about the grain and protein weekly maximums,” said Ford. “SNA will continue to report back to USDA on how these new flexibilities ease the burden on school meal programs and will make additional recommendations as warranted.”
Biometrics
F&R Funding
Foodco
THESix
Cents
USDA Has Released the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV
Written by: Maureen Pisanick, RD, LD - President, Chief Nutrition Officer at Pisanick Partners, LLC
Article from www.schoolnutrition.org
Lunchroom IQ
USDA Food and Nutrition Service has released the latest School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study. The report provides a comparison of the nutritional quality of school meals between SY 2009-2010, SY 2004-2005, and SY 1998-1999. As in prior studies, the nutrient content of the average meals offered and served in the Nation’s schools was compared with regulatory standards in effect at the time—the School Meal Initiative (SMI) nutrition standards—as well as selected recommendations included in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Since we service the educational arena it’s only fair we take a moment to test our own IQ. No it’s not the ACT or SAT we dreaded in high school, but it is a unique way to “test how smart your lunchroom is”. What is behavioral economics? Can you define choice architecture? What affect can choice restriction have on student participation? Please describe the difference between a hot state and cold state decision? Please name the six basic environmental cues that influence eating behaviors? Are you stumped yet, or maybe you where able to guess a few of these from hearing the newest trend in lunchroom program research and cutting edge philosophies for “making the grade” in the K-12 arena – THE SMARTER LUNCHROOM MOVEMENT.
A selection of key highlights are:
Cornell University has dedicated an entire department known as the BEN Center (Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs). From this collegiate brain power has emerged the “Smarter Lunchroom Movement”: www. smarterlunchrooms.org. This wonderful website has many features worth checking out including a way to assess your lunchroom to see where you score (and the answers to all of the questions above!) The new website has amazing features including the “MyPlan” function, a new resources section with materials from their training workshop & auditor materials, videos and research in addition to a 2 hour introductory online course (worth 2 CEUs from SNA). This is a definite favorite in my web searching for tools of the trade to help weather the storm of new regulations, student satisfaction, and of course a healthy bottom line for this year’s budget.
• 85% of schools offered lunches that met standards for key nutrients (protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron). • 82% of elementary schools, 95% of middle schools, and 90% of high schools had a la carte offerings available at lunch. • For both lunches offered and served, a larger share of HUSSC elementary schools met the SMI standards for calories, vitamin C, and iron, on average, than elementary schools nationwide.
Some of my favorite Smarter Lunchroom tools are: • Quick and Inexpensive Lunchroom Makeover Ideas
• Vending machines were widely available in high schools (85 %), somewhat less common in middle schools (67 %), and rare in elementary schools (13 %).
• Case Studies (illustrating real data driven research to support your efforts locally and share with those upper administrators to gain support) • Smarter Lunchroom Best Practice Evaluation and Implementation Guide
• More than 80% of school districts had a ban or restriction related to sweetened beverages and more than 75% had a ban or restriction related to snack foods.
• Putting Thought Into Action: DPIE (diagnose, prescribe, implement, and evaluate). • Looking for a New Year’s Resolution for your operation? This is a great gift to give yourself and your team.
Click here for the full report as well as the report summary.
Cheers and Happy Holidays from Pisanick Partners!
food service solutions ,Inc.
POS Software
Online Payments
Biometrics
F&R Funding
Foodco
Revitalizing the School Lunch Line through Fingerprint Identification Part 1 of 3 By now many principals, superintendents, administrators and K-12 food service operators have heard of school lunch biometrics, or the use of high tech devices such as fingerprint readers, to recognize students and allow for the automated payment and accounting of school lunch purchases. Once the province of the FBI and criminal investigators, fingerprint technology is now regularly being harnessed at K-12 schools around the nation. Not for Orwellian motives such as surveillance, identification or tracking, but for school lunches and breakfasts. Examples cited in this report include the Penn Cambria and Wilson School Districts in Pennsylvania; JSerra Catholic High School in San Juan Capistrano, California; and Fairfield School District of Fairfield, Texas. Yet this is only a small sampling of the hundreds of school districts across the United States that are currently implementing such systems. Using fingerprint ID technology, foodservice operators are not only speeding lunch lines and simplifying payment, but also virtually eliminating lunch fraud, bullying, and reversing the trend of declining reimbursement for programs such as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Moreover, because biometric systems automate the payment and accounting of school lunches, they eliminate tedious backend administrative chores such as cash, ticket, or paper-based handling, accounting, reconciling, and oversight. At first blush, fingerprinting students as a means to improve the efficiency and speed of school lunch lines often carries the “baggage” of a host of misconceptions about the technology – not to mention the privacy implications. For school district personnel, these preconceptions and considerations may lead to an initial hesitation to investigate the benefits of such systems. Therefore, this special report attempts to clear up the myths from the hype, and to provide an accurate picture of the technology and its potential benefits. This special report provides information and answers to the following questions: • A layman’s explanation of biometric technology and privacy issues • How parents can use such systems to monitor and control where their child’s lunch money is being spent
SECTION I: Biometric Technology and Privacy Issues To understand the necessity for a biometric solution, it is important to first understand the traditional (cash, lunch tickets) or more high tech alternatives used to access personal accounts into which parents have deposited money for lunches (PIN numbers, magnetic swipe cards). Although these options are acceptable and in widespread use today, there is one significant drawback common to all not found in biometric solutions: namely, with a fingerprint system you can’t lose your identification (finger), but kids being kids – they can and will lose or forget just about anything else.
perwork. Kids are fingerprinted just once, and the mathematical algorithm produced stays with them until they graduate. Those declining fingerprint IDs can continue to use cash or other methods.
SECTION II: Controlling Where the Money is Spent
Biometric Systems and Privacy Issues
For parents everywhere, it’s been a persistent and nagging problem: A child, provided with lunch money, bypasses the lunch line entirely and spends that money at the corner store on candy and soda. Or, worse, has that money stolen by a bully and is forced to go hungry. A parent providing hard cash to a child can do nothing but hope and worry, having no control over what their child does with that money or what happens to it before it is properly spent on a nutritional lunch. Because parents can set up a lunch account linked to a biometric system for their child’s use, they can not only be sure their child has enough money for lunch each day, but also can monitor what their kids are buying. “Whether standard school lunch or a la carte, parents can easily keep track of their children’s lunch purchases in the monthly billing statements mailed to them,” says Penn Cambria’s Food Service Director Joe Geisweidt. “That ensures that lunch money is spent for its intended use, and also puts an end to any predatory lunch money bullying.” “The parents have said that it’s really great to simply deposit the money and know it’s there,” says Mike Tubbs, IT Manager at JSerra Catholic High School in San Juan Capistrano, California. “The kids don’t have to take money to school, and parents can simply know their children will be buying lunch every day.” The school utilizes a biometric system developed especially for schools by Food Service Solutions (FSS), and has two point-of-sale readers set up in the school’s cafeteria. JSerra’s previous purchasing system, based on a child’s student number, created many problems. For example, a student would provide their number to a friend who would pay the student for the food purchased, and the student would simply pocket the money. Or, other students would purchase with another student’s number.
In most school lunch biometric systems, students place a forefinger on a small fingerprint reader by the register. In seconds, the system translates the electronic print into a mathematical pattern, discards the fingerprint image, and matches the pattern to the student’s meal account information. Food Service Solutions (FSS) biometric software, for example, plots 27 points on a grid that correspond with the fingerprint’s ridges to achieve positive identification, but saves no actual fingerprint image. Both parents and students can rest assured that the fingerprint images cannot be used by law enforcement for identification purposes. When school lunch biometric systems are numerically- based and discard the actual fingerprint image, they cannot be used for any purpose other than recognizing a student within a registered group of students. Since there’s no stored fingerprint image, the data is useless to law enforcement, which requires actual fingerprint images. As there’s no way for any fingerprint or computer expert to extract a record and reconstruct a person’s fingerprint image from purely numerical data, privacy is protected. Fingerprinting is voluntary and typically done when the student enters the school system along with enrollment pa-
Because of its loopholes, the old system made it very difficult for the school to provide accurate accounting to parents, and parents, seeing the odd or additional purchases made on their childrens’ accounts, would be making daily complaints. “Any complaints now are few and far between,” Tubbs says. Another successful implementation of biometrics is in three schools in the Fairfield School District of Fairfield, Texas. “The majority of parents think it’s great,” says Crystal Thill, Food Service Director for the district. “They know that their money is going for their child, instead of somebody else using their account.” “Before we got this system, there were quite a bit of parents calling in saying, ‘my child didn’t purchase that,’” Thill continues. “Of course, we had no way of telling whether their child purchased it or not, and we would have to delete the charge. Now it’s of course a given that their child did purchase items.” According to Thill, the system has also made a great difference with the younger students at the Fairfield District’s elementary school—they’re not now having to remember a number. “With the PIN numbers, we would have to manually pull them up, which is a lot more time consuming.”
PIN Numbers The problem PIN numbers is that they can be easily forgotten, particularly with younger children, forcing school lunchroom staffers to look them up while the lunch line comes to a halt. Children have also been known to give the number to a friend, which in the end causes parents to be billed for extra food they know their children didn’t purchase. This can stimulate angry calls from parents insistent on getting billings corrected. “Cards with easily-forgotten personal identification numbers (PINs) also pose problems and are prone to fraud when the PIN codes are overheard and misused by other students,” explains Joe Geisweidt, Food Service Director of Penn Cambria School District. Magnetic Swipe Cards Although convenient, magnetic-stripped cards are frequently lost, stolen, destroyed, or misused in alarming numbers. In fact, over 70% of students will typically need to have their swipe cards replaced each year, on average, at considerable expense. Magnetic swipe cards can also be slipped to friends so they can buy lunch or stolen by bullies.
food service solutions ,Inc.
POS Software
Online Payments
Biometrics
F&R Funding
Foodco