get h ealthy p hilly - city of philadelphia: city of philadelphia school food reforms status... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Funding fo
Disease Co
initiative of
reflect the
commercia
GetHSchooRecomAugu
or this project w
ontrol and Prev
of the Philadelp
official policies
al practices, or
HealthyPolFoodmmendst2012
was made poss
vention, U.S. De
phia Departme
s of the Depart
organizations
PhillyReformdations2
sible by Cooper
epartment of H
nt of Public He
tment of Healt
imply endorse
msStatuandNe
rative Agreeme
Health and Hum
ealth. The view
th and Human
ement by the U
usRepoextStep
ent #1U58DP0
man Services; a
ws expressed in
Services; nor d
U.S. Governmen
orts
002626‐01 from
and Get Health
this report do
does mention o
nt.
m the Centers f
hy Philly, an
not necessaril
of trade names
for
ly
s,
Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
A. The Philadelphia School Food Context……………………………………………………………………………………1
B. S.R. Watkins’ Objectives and Methods…………………………………………………………………………….…….4
C. Key Findings and Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………5
D. Challenges to Implementation………………………………………………………………………………………………8
E. Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Appendix A: S.R. Watkins’ 20‐day cycle menus…………………………………………………………………….…11
Appendix B: Quality Improvement Program Components………………………………………………….……14
IntroduGet Heal
academia
access to
appealin
children’
S.R. Watk
and mak
acceptab
This statu
an updat
conducte
Putting P
by PDPH
Philadelp
and a de
School D
D). In Se
quality, n
A. TEach day
meals in
federal a
Program
As of SY2
eligible fo
and adm
1 For more2 The consa large meU.S. Departhe Schoolprocureme3 The Final 4 There is awith incomincomes be
uctionlthy Philly is
a, and comm
o affordable,
g school me
s meals and
kins & Assoc
e cost‐effect
bility.
us report, au
te and sugge
ed as part of
Prevention to
in Section C
phia (Section
scription of
istrict of Phi
ction E, PDP
nutritious fo
ThePhilady, FSD serves
302 differen
nd state reim
. Approxima
2011‐2012, t
or free lunch
inistrative c
e information vulting team of tropolitan schortment of Agric District of Phient and contraReport can bea tiered reimbumes at or belowetween 130 an
a ground‐br
munity‐based
, healthy foo
als offer a c
improve ch
ciates (S.R. W
tive recomm
uthored by t
ested next st
f Get Healthy
o Work Scho
C. In other pa
n A); an expl
the recogniz
iladelphia (S
PH recomme
od they dese
delphiaScs approximat
nt locations
mbursemen
ately 76% of
the federal r
h. That reim
osts.
visit www.philaS.R. Watkins &ool system andculture; Thomaladelphia; Eric ct developmene accessed at wursement rate w 130 percent nd 185 percent
eaking publi
d partners to
od and oppo
ritical oppor
ildren’s eati
Watkins)2 wa
mendations t
the Philadelp
teps for scho
y Philly. Reco
ool Food Ref
arts of this re
anation of S
zed challeng
DP) in imple
ends key nex
erve.
choolFootely 60,000 b
in Philadelp
ts for partic
students in
eimburseme
bursement m
a.gov/gethealth& Associates cod former Undeas McGlinchy, fShapiro, a pront; and Katie Cwww.phila/govto FSD dependof poverty are t of poverty are
Sc
1
ic health init
o reduce and
rtunities to
rtunity to inc
ng habits. W
as retained t
to improve n
phia Departm
ool food refo
ommendatio
forms Final R
eport, PDPH
.R. Watkins’
ges faced by
ementing S.R
xt steps to en
odContexbreakfasts, 1
hia, includin
ipating in th
SDP are elig
ent rate was
must cover f
hyphilly or wwonsisted of: Sher Secretary of former foodseofessional expeCavuto‐Boyle, av/gethealthyphding on the hoeligible for free eligible for re
chool Food Ref
tiative that b
d prevent ch
be physically
crease the n
With suppor
to assess cur
nutritional q
ment of Pub
orms in Phila
ons from the
Report (“Fina
H provides ba
’ objectives a
the Food Se
R. Watkins’ r
nsure Philad
xt100,000 lunc
ng 21 charter
he National S
gible for free
s $2.79 for e
food costs ($
ww.foodfitphillyirley R. WatkinFood, Nutritiorvice director aerienced in scha professional chilly usehold incomee meals ($2.79educed‐price m
forms Status R
brings toget
hronic diseas
y active.1 He
nutritional qu
rt from Get H
rrent school
uality and st
blic Health (P
adelphia pub
e S.R. Watki
al Report”)3
ackground o
and method
ervices Divisi
recommend
delphia child
ches and 5,0
r schools. FS
School Lunch
e or reduced
each meal se
$1.39) in add
y.org ns, former foodon and Consumand Chief Opehool foodservicchef and regist
me of the child 9 reimbursememeals ($2.39 re
Report ‐ August
her governm
se through
ealthy and
uality of
Healthy Phil
food practic
tudent
PDPH), provi
blic schools
ns’ Commun
are summa
on school foo
ds (Section B
ion (FSD) of
ations (Sect
ren get the
000 after‐sch
SD receives
h and Breakf
‐price meals
erved to a ch
dition to lab
dservice directmer Services wirating Officer fce managementered dietician
served. Familent). Families eimbursement
t 2012
ment,
lly,
ces
des
nities
rized
od in
B);
the
ion
high‐
hool
fast
s. 4
hild
or
tor for th the for nt, .
ies with ).
The majo
prepared
facilities
The histo
of schoo
serve foo
without k
that defi
operated
costs com
prepared
pre‐plate
and mea
contracts
enabled
oversight
Currently
per‐mea
(1‐2 food
contract.
and in SY
Similar to
Formerly
commod
into both
processe
example,
meals, th
into the m
or depre
received
In additio
other typ
ority of FSD m
d and packag
(69 schools)
ory of the pr
l facilities) a
ods on‐site).
kitchen or st
nition. Initia
d by FSD and
mpelled FSD
d foods. In SY
ed meals, co
l distribution
s caused FSD
lower labor
t previously
y, the pre‐pl
l costs are h
d service wo
. The Maram
Y2009‐2010
o school dist
y called “USD
ities” – whic
h pre‐plate a
ed or raw pro
, raw beef o
he vendor re
meal. Occas
ssed market
entitlement
on to the pre
pes of contra
meal locatio
ged off‐site a
) where mea
e‐plate prog
nd FSD’s sta
The pre‐pla
torage capac
ally, pre‐plat
d shipped to
to close the
Y1985‐1986,
ld/fresh com
n. In SY2004
D to shift to a
costs as the
conducted b
ate contract
igher than t
rkers) and le
mount Corpo
(the current
tricts across
DA Commod
ch are frozen
and full‐servi
oducts, such
r turkey is p
eceives foods
sionally, “bo
t prices and
t and bonus
e‐plate mea
acts: milk (fo
ons (233 scho
and delivere
als are prepa
gram is tied t
ffing (the ca
ate program
city to serve
ted meals w
schools on a
e commissar
, there were
mponents (e
4‐2005, redu
a single‐pric
e vendor bec
by FSD staff.
t is a fixed si
hose in the f
ess administ
oration has p
t contract) M
the country
ities,” USDA
n, fresh, can
ice meals. S
h as meat, th
rocessed int
s already pro
onus” commo
are provided
commoditie
ls and USDA
or full‐servic
Sc
2
ools) are “pr
ed daily. The
ared and ass
to both SDP’
apacity to ma
m began in th
full‐service
ere prepare
a daily basis
ry and work
e five contra
.g. juice, bre
uced adminis
ce‐per‐meal
came respon
.
ngle‐price‐p
full‐service p
rative requi
primarily ser
Maramount w
y, SDP partici
A Foods prov
ned or dried
Schools rece
hat are proce
to Salisbury
ocessed from
odities beco
d to FSD at n
es from USDA
A Foods proc
e), groceries
chool Food Ref
re‐plate” fac
remaining l
sembled on‐s
’s physical in
anage contr
he late 1960s
meals. Toda
d in a centra
. In the mid
with outside
cts with diff
ead, fruit, et
strative capa
contract wit
nsible for mo
per‐meal for
program, the
rements due
rviced the pr
was the only
ipates in the
vides schools
d food produ
eive entitlem
essed by con
steak or bee
m contracte
ome availabl
no additiona
DA Foods valu
essing contr
s and provisi
forms Status R
cilities where
locations are
site.
nfrastructur
racts and/or
s to serve th
ay 180 schoo
al commissa
d‐1970s high
e vendors to
ferent vendo
c.), frozen sa
acity to man
th one vend
ore of the log
breakfast a
ere are fewe
e to the con
re‐plate mea
y responden
e USDA Food
s with “entit
ucts – that a
ment commo
ntracted ven
ef patties. Fo
d vendors to
e due to agr
al cost. In SY
ued at $4.14
racts, FSD m
ions, deterg
Report ‐ August
e meals are
e “full‐servic
e (the capac
prepare and
he many scho
ol locations
ry (kitchen)
labor and fo
o supply
ors for frozen
andwiches,
nage multipl
or. This swit
gistics and
nd lunch. W
er staff on si
solidated
als since 198
t to the RFP
ds program.
tlement
re incorpora
odities alread
ndors. For
or pre‐plate
o incorporat
riculture sur
2010‐2011,
4 million.
anages four
ents and
t 2012
ce”
city
d
ools
meet
ood
n
milk
e
tch
While
te
85,
.
ated
dy
te
plus
FSD
r
disposab
meals ($2
provision
Lastly, FS
Food, Th
menu wi
facilities.
twenty‐f
approxim
Two exte
Watkins’
impleme
million st
administ
full‐servi
reduced
The seco
Departm
Lunch an
in Januar
FSD will r
but the c
(though t
bles, and war
28 million), c
ns ($4.2 milli
SD operates
e Food Trust
th fresh pro
Most of th
ive high scho
mately 60,00
ernal factors
consultatio
nted $752 m
tructural def
rative and fi
ce schools to
full‐time sta
ond external
ment of Agric
nd Breakfast
ry 2012. By
receive an a
cost of full co
this is not an
Increa
Increa
Restri
Increa
Limite
rehouse and
currently se
ion), current
a Farm to Sc
t, and a loca
duce source
e farm‐to‐sc
ools particip
00 pounds of
significantly
n period. Th
million in pro
ficit for SY 20
eld staff, eli
o pre‐plate f
aff by 54%.
factor impa
ulture nutrit
Program. Pr
SY2012‐201
dditional 6 c
ompliance is
n exhaustive
ased frequen
ased whole g
cted fat con
ased weekly
ed amounts
d distribution
rviced by the
tly managed
chool Progra
al food distri
ed from loca
chool locatio
pated in the
f fresh fruits
y impacted t
he first is SDP
ogram reduc
012‐2013. T
minated lun
facilities in S
cting school
tion standar
roposed stan
3, all FSD m
cents reimbu
s not yet kno
e list):
ncy and varie
grain food se
ntent in milk
servings of
of trans fats
Sc
3
n. The large
e Maramoun
by U.S. Foo
am (“Eat Fre
butor. The p
l farms and
ons are full‐s
Farm to Sch
and vegeta
the Philadelp
P’s ongoing
ctions to bala
To address b
nch room mo
SY2011‐2012
l food during
rds (“USDA S
ndards were
eals must be
ursement fro
own. The US
ety of veget
ervings;
to 1% fat or
legumes (dr
s, saturated f
chool Food Ref
st contracts
nt Corporati
ods.
esh Here”) in
program sup
delivered di
service facilit
ool Program
bles for $50
phia school f
budget crisis
ance the bu
budget challe
onitors, and
2. Overall, si
g this time is
Standards”) f
e released in
e consistent
om USDA pe
SDA Standar
ables and fr
r lower;
ry beans or p
fats, sugar a
forms Status R
are for the
ion; and gro
n coordinatio
pplements t
rectly to par
ties. In SY20
m, purchasin
,000.
food landsca
s. In SY2011
dget, and an
enges, FSD r
transitioned
nce SY2005‐
s the release
for the Natio
n January 20
with the ne
er compliant
rds include t
uits served;
peas); and
and sodium.
Report ‐ August
pre‐plated
ceries and
on with Fair
he tradition
rticipating
011‐2012,
g a total of
ape during S
1‐2012, SDP
nticipated a
reduced
d twenty‐fou
‐2006 FSD ha
e of new U.S
onal School
11 and final
ew standards
t lunch serve
he following
t 2012
al
S.R.
$269
ur
as
.
ized
s.
ed
g
B. S
Objective
S.R. Watk
1) Revie
cost‐
2) Reco
a 20‐
3) Asses
oppo
4) Evalu
progr
5) Engag
innov
6) Provi
Methods
From Ma
school fo
interview
identified
sourcing
From Jun
areas to
pre‐plate
numerou
S.R. Watk
potentia
a taste te
Food and
Foundati
food stra
5 PUFFA is 6 The VetriBenjamin. 7 The Final
S.R.Watki
es
kins was tas
ew food proc
effective rev
mmend new
day cycle m
ss kitchen eq
ortunities for
uate differen
ram and acc
ge a food se
vative strate
de a summa
s
arch 2011 ‐ M
ood program
ws, site visits
d the follow
and quality
ne 2011 ‐ Jan
prepare find
e contracts t
us food man
kins also org
l process for
est of propo
d Fitness Alli
ion for Child
ategies. The
a grassroots in Foundation fo For more infoReport can be
ins’Objec
ked with com
curement co
visions to inc
w menu offe
enu with rec
quipment, sp
r improveme
nt approache
eptability of
ervice expert
egies that wi
ary of expect
May 2011, S.
m to identify
s, and an ana
ing focus are
improveme
nuary 2012,
dings and rec
o look at eff
ufacturers to
ganized a foo
r product sou
sed new me
ance (PUFFA
ren6 as the n
e Final Report
nitiative that tror Children wasormation please accessed here
ctivesand
mpleting the
ontracts, par
crease qualit
rings that al
cipes.
pace, and sta
ent.
es to increas
f foods.
t without a t
ll build inter
ted barriers
.R. Watkins c
areas of foc
alysis of FSD
eas: the pre
nt.
S.R. Watkins
commendat
ficiencies acr
o identify ne
od expo for
urcing. To as
enu items wi
A).5 Finally, S
nontradition
t was complet
rains youth as Ws founded in 2e visit: www.ve: www.phila.
Sc
4
dMethods
e following o
rticularly the
ty and accep
ign with the
aff capacity
se children’s
raditional sc
rest and exci
to impleme
conducted a
us within th
budgets, co
e‐plate progr
s conducted
tions. Ultima
ross all FSD f
ew food pro
FSD staff to
ssess studen
th youth pa
S.R. Watkins
nal food serv
ted in March
Wellness Advo008 by acclaimetrifoundationgov/gethealth
chool Food Ref
s
objectives:
e pre‐plate c
ptability.
e latest nutri
in schools w
participatio
chool food b
itement in sc
nting recom
an initial asse
e broader o
ontracts, and
ram, studen
d additional a
ately, S.R. W
food contra
ducts and ad
identify new
nt acceptabi
rticipating in
s identified a
vice expert t
2012.7
ocates to makemed chef Marc n.org/ yphilly
forms Status R
contract, and
tional stand
with kitchens
on in the sch
background t
chool food r
mmendations
essment of t
bjectives. B
d indicators,
t acceptabil
analysis base
Watkins expan
cts. S.R. Wat
dditional pre
w products, t
lity, S.R. Wa
n the Philade
and consulte
to identify in
e positive chanVetri and rest
Report ‐ August
d recommen
dards and inc
s to identify
ool food
to identify
reforms.
s.
the current
By conductin
S.R. Watkin
ity, new pro
ed on the fo
nded focus f
tkins met wi
e‐plate supp
testing one
tkins conduc
elphia Urban
ed with the V
nnovative sch
ges in schools.aurateur Jeff
t 2012
nd
clude
g
ns
oduct
ocus
from
ith
pliers.
cted
n
Vetri
hool
.
C.KeyThe follo
Please se
Key F
FS
T
in
co
p
m
B
o
B
A
su
tw
p
FS
T
li
in
Findingswing is a sum
ee the Final R
indings
SD’s current
he gradual r
nadequate st
ost efficienc
rocurement
management
ased on the
f food waste
oth pre‐plat
Appendix B) t
upervised, a
wenty sites v
rogram in p
SD menus la
here are def
mit oversigh
nclude, but a
o Restri
proce
o Lack o
appro
o Lack o
freque
o Undef
o No req
vendo
o Weak
sandRecommary of se
Report for a
t food servic
reduction of
taffing levels
ies and wast
t process, inc
t, is conducte
site visits, p
e compared
te and full‐se
that ensures
nd that the
visited ‐ a fu
lace.
ack sufficient
ficiencies in
ht, transpare
are not limit
ctive and pr
ssing and st
of quality sta
oved brands
of control by
ency of men
fined numbe
quirements
or should cre
requiremen
ommendaelect findings
full list of fi
e program is
FSD staff du
s. This limits
te, and test
cluding orde
ed by one fu
pre‐plate fac
to full‐servic
ervice faciliti
s the cafeter
food served
ll‐service fac
t variety due
the pre‐plat
ency, and co
ed to:
roprietary la
orage capac
andards for p
and no sam
y FSD over m
nu items;
er of total m
for docume
edit FSD for
nts for progr
Sc
5
ationss and recom
ndings and r
s cost neutra
ue to SDP’s b
s FSD’s capa
new food pr
ering, contra
ull time emp
cilities had po
ce facilities.
ies lack a “q
ria environm
d is age appro
cility ‐ had a
e to a less th
te Request fo
mpetition. I
nguage (e.g.
city by the ve
product spec
pling protoc
menu develop
meals served;
ntation of cr
receiving alr
ram supervis
chool Food Ref
mmendations
recommend
al for SDP’s g
budgetary ch
acity to overs
roducts. For
ct complian
ployee.
oorer food q
uality impro
ment is respe
opriate and
n effective q
han 20‐day c
or Proposals
Identified de
., requiring e
endor);
cifications (e
cols for new
pment, inclu
;
redits and re
ready proces
sion and cus
forms Status R
s from the F
dations.
general fund
hallenges ha
see food ser
r example, t
ce, and inve
quality and a
ovement” pr
ectful and ap
appealing.
quality impro
cycle menu.
s (RFP) and c
eficiencies in
excessive an
e.g. there is
products);
uding quanti
ebates (e.g.,
ssed USDA F
stomer servic
Report ‐ August
inal Report.
d.
as resulted in
rvices, ident
he entire
entory
a larger amo
rogram (see
ppropriately
Only one ou
ovement
contract tha
n the RFP
nd unnecessa
no listing of
ity and
the amount
Foods); and
ce.
t 2012
n
ify
ount
ut of
t
ary
f
t the
T
T
a
n
ye
su
M
to
fa
ex
S.R. W
1. M
fa
2. O
a
3. P
vi
R
p
W
m
4. U
FS
su
a
5. V
p
8 Verticallysupply and
here are two
here are def
ddressed. F
ot specify a
ear contract
uppliers, and
Many food m
o meet USDA
act that over
xpo.
Watkins’ sho
Menu: FSD sh
acilities (see
Organization
ugment staf
re‐plate pro
iability of a n
ather than b
ackaged item
Watkins antic
make healthy
USDA Foods:
SD should al
uppliers8 for
nd tap into t
Vendor and p
roducts and
y integrated sud operating cos
o potential c
ficiencies in
or example,
formal proc
ts add admin
d remove fle
manufacturer
A standards
r 100 potent
ort term rec
hould incorp
Appendix A
: In order to
ff in materia
ogram: FSD s
new pre‐plat
being served
ms and choo
cipated this
y choices.
FSD should
lso impleme
r beef, poult
the suppliers
product sou
equipment
ppliers controsts.
competitors
the USDA Fo
, these contr
ess for gaini
nistrative bu
exibility to ac
rs and broke
and providi
tial food pro
commendati
porate the 20
A).
o efficiently o
ls managem
should estab
te bidder an
d an entire p
ose three of
would decre
improve the
ent a longer t
ry and chick
s’ marketing
rcing: FSD s
.
l the livestock
Sc
6
to the curre
oods process
racts include
ing feedback
rden, limit t
ccept bonus
ers are intere
ng staff train
ducts were
ions (SY2012
0‐day cycle m
operate the
ment, training
blish a pilot p
nd incorpora
re‐packaged
five items o
ease food wa
e specificatio
term contra
ken. This will
g and resear
should impro
from birth to f
chool Food Ref
ent pre‐plate
sing contrac
e unclear or
k. Additiona
the ability to
s commoditie
ested in dev
ning to FSD.
developed a
2‐2013):
menu for bo
SDP’s food p
g and auditin
program for
tes the elem
d meal, stud
offered for a
aste and cos
ons in USDA
ct (five year
l allow the S
ch and deve
ove staff out
finished produ
forms Status R
e vendor.
cts that need
outdated pr
ally, annual a
o create part
es from USD
veloping new
This was ev
and displaye
oth pre‐plate
program, FS
ng areas.
20‐30 schoo
ment of “Offe
ents are offe
reimbursab
st while allow
A Foods proc
rs) with verti
DP to garne
elopment fun
treach to ide
ct, with tight m
Report ‐ August
d to be
rovisions and
awards of on
tnerships wit
DA Foods.
w food produ
videnced by t
ed at the foo
e and full‐se
SD should
ols that test
er v. Serve.”
ered individ
le meal. S.R
wing studen
essing contr
ically integra
r better pric
nds.
entify new fo
management o
t 2012
d do
ne‐
th
ucts
the
od
rvice
s the
”
ually
R.
nts to
racts.
ated
cing
ood
of
6. C
sh
su
7. T
p
8. In
V
S.R. W
1. P
co
ve
e
p
sp
te
2. P
(1
(2
m
re
9 Eat.Rightmany com
ustomer fee
hould initiat
uch as Eat.R
raining: FSD
reparing and
nnovative st
Vetri Foundat
o Provid
o Prope
food p
mana
o Ensur
o Get ch
o Condu
mann
Watkins long
rocurement
ould serve b
endor order
stimated the
rocurement
pecific cost i
ested in the
re‐plate con
1) re‐bidding
2) breaking t
model. If the
ecommends
Elimin
Clearl
.Now is a nutrimunity based
edback: FSD
e a structure
ight.Now9 to
D should par
d serving ne
trategies: FS
tion for Child
de fresh, nut
erly train the
preparation,
gement.
e adequate
hildren invol
uct pilot fam
ers, etiquett
g term recom
t logistics: F
both the pre‐
rs, receives, s
e CDC mode
t and produc
implications
marketplace
ntract: FSD s
g the contrac
the contract
e contract is
the followin
nate restricti
y reflect nut
ition educationorganizations.
should rout
ed program
o elicit ongo
rtner with a
w menu item
SD should in
dren into all
tritious food
e staff such a
, production
adult superv
lved to creat
mily style serv
te and eatin
mmendation
FSD should e
‐plate and fu
stores, and d
el would allo
ct sourcing. H
or savings i
e.
should addre
ct with revis
into individ
rebid in the
ng changes:
ive and prop
tritional qua
n program ope They provide
Sc
7
tinely condu
in partnersh
ing student
volunteer ch
ms for kitche
corporate th
of the abov
d that tastes
as cafeteria m
, budgeting,
vision in the
te buy‐in.
vice in an ele
g new and u
ns (SY2013‐2
establish a Ce
ull‐service pr
distributes p
w economie
However, S.
n this scope
ess the ident
sions in the c
ual bids and
e single‐price
prietary lang
lity standard
erating in XX sc in‐classroom l
chool Food Ref
uct student a
hip with a nu
feedback on
hef to create
en productio
he following
ve recomme
good to kids
managers an
, good food
lunch room
ementary sc
unfamiliar fo
2014):
entralized D
rograms. In
products pro
es, efficienci
R. Watkins w
of work bec
tified deficie
current singl
d utilizing the
e‐per‐meal f
guage.
ds and opera
chools across Slessons, event
forms Status R
and staff tast
utrition educ
n proposed m
e short train
on teams.
g strategies i
endations:
s.
nd cooks in b
ordering pra
m.
chool to enc
oods.
Distribution C
the CDC mo
ocured by FS
es, and cont
was not able
cause the m
encies in the
le‐price‐per‐
e Central Dis
format, S.R.
ational requ
SDP through pas, and marketi
Report ‐ August
te tests. FSD
cation progr
menu offerin
ing videos o
dentified by
base kitchen
actices, and
ourage table
Center (CDC)
odel, an outs
SD. S.R. Watk
trol over
e to outline
odel needs t
e RFP by eith
‐meal forma
stribution Ce
Watkins
uirements.
artnerships witng materials.
t 2012
D
ram
ngs.
on
y the
ns on
e
) that
side
kins
to be
er
at or
enter
th
3. P
th
o
su
D. CSDP’s on
operate t
an averag
than the
verify S.R
increased
offset in
Additiona
Centraliz
FSD and
would be
Departm
Finance D
sector pa
replacem
impleme
context o
Provid
sampl
Provid
Requideterm
Includselect
Add vtrainin
re‐plate to f
he pre‐plate
perational k
upplement w
Challengegoing budge
the school fo
ge cost of $1
current cost
R. Watkins’ e
d competitio
other areas
ally, increas
zed Distribut
SDP’s reduc
e needed to
ment resource
Department
artnerships m
ments for lun
ntation wou
of a strategic
de historical
le menu item
de detailed i
re the biddemine all cred
de the evaluat the success
endor supplng food safe
full‐service r
program. P
kitchen equip
with a comb
stoImpleet crisis will c
ood program
1.69 to $1.73
t of $1.39 an
estimate. S.R
on, but also
of the food
ing the num
tion Center)
ed administ
revise speci
es would be
resources w
might be nec
nch room sup
uld be most s
c plan.
usage and r
ms.
nformation
er to providedits quoted.
ation of foodsful contract
ied service rety, and sanit
ratio: FSD s
re‐plate sho
pment. Unti
ination of pr
ementatiocontinue to
m and to imp
3 for the new
nd a test in t
R. Watkins fe
assumed tha
program bu
ber of procu
and revising
rative staff.
fications, ev
needed to r
would be nee
cessary to m
pervision or
successful w
Sc
8
reasonable e
on past and
e detailed inf
d samples astor.
representatitation inspe
hould limit t
ould only be
l trained sta
repared and
onimpact FSD’
plement reco
w 20‐day pr
the marketp
elt it was rea
at any cost o
udget.
urement con
g the RFP wo
For exampl
valuate bids,
review bid la
eded to pay
make change
equipment
with support
chool Food Ref
estimated se
d estimated u
formation o
s a part of th
ives to augmction.
the conversi
employed in
ff is availabl
d self‐prep it
s administra
ommendatio
e‐plate men
lace through
asonable to
of the menu
ntracts (thro
ould place ad
le, Procurem
, and prepar
anguage and
vendor invo
s at a schoo
upgrades. F
from SDP le
forms Status R
erving freque
usage of USD
on the calcul
he rating pro
ment FSD sup
on of full‐se
n facilities th
le at these s
tems.
ative and sta
ons. S.R. Wa
nu. Howeve
h bid issuanc
expect savin
changes wo
ough the dev
dditional req
ment Departm
re contract a
d structure c
oices. Innov
ol level, such
Finally, S.R. W
eadership an
Report ‐ August
encies for
DA Foods.
ations used
ocess used to
pervision,
ervice school
hat do not ha
ites, FSD sho
aff capacity t
atkins estim
r, this is mor
ce is require
ngs through
ould need to
velopment o
quirements o
ment resour
awards. Lega
contracts, an
vative private
as finding
Watkins felt
nd within the
t 2012
to
o
ls to
ave
ould
to
ated
re
ed to
o be
of a
on
rces
al
nd
e
that
e
E. NFSD has w
constrain
school fo
and broa
constrain
long‐term
steps inc
1. A
b
T
in
re
vi
m
2. P
tr
se
th
m
3. T
tr
h
S
o
4. In
sh
im
vo
n
Through
food, inc
e
NextStepsworked to e
ned, limited‐
ood would be
ad changes F
nts make ref
m change wh
lude:
An additiona
oth pre‐plat
hese fruits a
ncluding gree
eflective of s
ia effective s
monitored th
re‐plate sch
ransition ba
ervice this co
hereafter. T
measures of n
he pre‐plate
ransparency
ealthier and
.R. Watkins w
ver menu de
nnovative pr
hould be pu
mprove the s
olunteer lun
ew menu ite
Get Healthy
luding but n
ngaging stud
snsure that m
‐reimbursem
enefit from
FSD can mak
form challen
hile impleme
l serving of
te and full‐s
and vegetabl
en, red, and
students’ tas
strategies (e
hrough plate
hools with ki
ck to full‐se
oming schoo
These school
need (e.g., e
e RFP should
y of the pre‐
d more appe
will make th
evelopment,
rivate secto
rsued. In pa
school food
nch monitors
ems (i.e., fam
y Philly, PDPH
not limited to
dents as lead
meals meet f
ment environ
improvemen
e to enhanc
nging, there i
enting more
fresh fruits
ervice facilit
les should b
orange veg
stes and pre
e.g. placeme
waste studi
itchen facilit
rvice. At le
ol year, with
s should be
eligibility rate
d be revised
plate progra
ealing food.
he vendor m
, and better
r partnershi
artnership w
environmen
s) and pilot a
mily style din
H will partne
o:
ders and par
Sc
9
federal nutri
nment. How
nts. S.R. Wa
e school foo
is an opport
e modest ste
and vegetab
ties to meet
e of high qu
etables and
ferences. Th
nt at the beg
ies in partne
ties, which w
east ten scho
a plan to tra
prioritized b
es for free a
to improve
am, resultin
The RFP an
ore respons
identify com
ips to impro
with PDPH, F
nt (e.g. equip
additional st
ning or beha
er to develo
rticipants in
chool Food Ref
ition standa
wever, the q
atkins’ repor
od. Althoug
tunity for FSD
eps in the ne
bles should
t new federa
ality and sho
legumes. Th
heir consum
ginning of th
ership with P
were previo
ools should b
ansition five
based on op
and reduce‐p
e competitio
ng in higher q
d contract c
sive to qualit
mponent cos
ove food qua
SD should e
pment upgra
trategies to i
avioral econo
p tools and
new school
forms Status R
rds within a
quality and a
rt identified
gh ongoing b
D to lay the
ear future. Im
be provided
al nutrition
owcase wide
he offerings
ption should
he serving lin
PDPH.
ously full‐ser
be converted
e to ten scho
erational ca
price meals).
on, accounta
quality bids
changes reco
ty, ensure FS
sts and savin
ality and foo
xplore oppo
ades, cafete
increase con
omics).
processes to
reforms;
Report ‐ August
cost‐
cceptability
both specifi
budget
foundation
mmediate n
d every day
standards.
e variety
should be
d be promot
ne) and
rvice, should
d back to ful
ools each yea
pacity and
.
ability, and
and, ultima
ommended b
SD has contr
ngs.
od environm
ortunities to
ria redesign
nsumption o
o improve sc
t 2012
of
c
for
ext
in
ted
d
ll‐
ar
ately,
by
rol
ments
s,
of
chool
m
p
fr
re
Question
email to
(amanda
monitoring th
roviding ove
ruits and veg
esearching a
ns and feedb
Amanda Wa
.wagner@p
he quality an
ersight and m
getables; and
and helping t
back on this r
agner, Food
hila.gov).
nd appeal of
managemen
d
to implemen
report or su
Policy Coord
Sc
10
f new menu
t of a plate w
nt innovative
ggestions to
dinator with
chool Food Ref
items and d
waste study
e private sec
o improve sc
the Departm
forms Status R
disseminating
y, including a
ctor partner
chool food ca
ment of Pub
Report ‐ August
g results;
a focus on ne
ships.
an be sent v
blic Health
t 2012
ew
via
Appen
dixA:S.RR.Watkin
s’20‐day
Sc
11
ycycleme
chool Food Ref
enus
forms Status RReport ‐ Augustt 2012
III-33 SR WATKINS & ASSOCIATES
LUNCH School District of Philadelphia
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
Unbreaded Fish Filet Or
Grilled Chicken Breast WM Seasoned Broccoli
Whole grain dinner roll Celery sticks
100% Fruit Juice *
Grilled Chicken Tenders Or
Meatloaf Spinach
Fresh Orange
Live Smart Deep Dish Pizza Or
Garden Salad With Garbonzo Beans Diced Hard Boiled egg
Grape Tomatoes Balsamic Dressing
Baby Carrots Fresh Pear
Italian Turkey Hoagie Or
Fresh Deli Sandwich on Whole Grain Bread
Side of Lettuce, tomato & Onion
Fresh Banana
Black Bean Empanada Or
Egg Roll with Vegetable Fried Rice Peas & Carrots
Fresh Apple Celery sticks
Meatballs (reduced sodium) Over whole grain pasta
Or Macaroni and cheese
(reduced fat whole grain) Peas
Baby carrots 100% Fruit Juice
Roast Turkey Or
Salisbury Steak With
Seasoned breaded Okra Mashed sweet potatoes
Dinner Roll WG Fresh Orange
Soft Taco Meal (Beef, chicken or turkey )
Whole Wheat Tortilla Or
Reduced Fat Hamburger Mexican Style Corn
Celery sticks Fresh Banana
Fresh Tuna Salad Platter Or
Fresh Lite Chicken Salad Platter with
Lettuce, tomato, onions Whole Grain Bread Stick
Fresh Pear
Black Bean Mexican Pizza or
Fresh Salad (iceberg & romaine combination) Topped with
Turkey or chicken strips Diced Hard Boiled Egg Grape Tomatoes w/
Honey Mustard dressing Sliced Apples
Southwestern Flatbread Chicken Sandwich or Philly melt
(Cheese and turkey pep on a Pretzel bun) Celery sticks Fresh Orange
WG Breaded Green Beans
Turkey Burger on Whole Grain Bun Or
Meatball Sandwich Side salad
Pineapple Cup
Sicilian Pizza Plain Or
Sicilian Pizza w/ pepperoni (soy bacon or turkey pep)
Side salad Fresh Banana
Turkey Lasagna Or
Vegetarian Chili Whole Wheat Bun
Peas Fresh Pear
Baby carrots
Oriental Chicken Strips Or
Boneless Buffalo wings Over long grain rice
Fresh Celery and Carrots w/dipping sauce 100% Fruit Juice
Salisbury Steak w/ Country Gravy Or
Turkey Patty Mashed Potatoes
Green Beans Whole Wheat Bun 100% Fruit Juice
Whole Wheat Penne Pasta Or
BBQ Chicken Patty on Whole Wheat bun
Seasoned Broccoli Baby carrots Fresh Pear
Whole Grain Cheese Pizza Or
Hot Dog on Whole Wheat Bun Fresh Cut Carrots
Fresh Orange
Fresh Turkey Sandwich Or
Reduced Fat Hamburger on Whole Wheat Bun
Side of Lettuce, tomato & Onion
Fresh Banana
Whole Grain Chicken Nuggets Or
Boneless Buffalo Wings Whole Grain Breadstick
Apple Slices Peas & Carrots
*Fat Free and 1% milk will be available each day
This menu was planned to meet the 2012 USDA guidelines of new meal pattern.
Pre-plate Menu
Appen
Below ar
Report a
Pro
S
DOu
dixB:Qu
re the compo
nd summari
Foododuct
FoodServic
Desireutcom
ualityImp
onents of a q
zed by PDPH
d tion
d ce
ed mes
provemen
quality impr
H.
•menu deve
•high quality
•standardize
•quality staf
•pleasant so
•training of s
•customer se
•serving foo
•improved n
•improved e
•increased n
14
ntProgram
ovement pr
lopment with
y ingredients
ed recipes
f training
ocial environm
support (non
ervice and re
d at appropia
nutritional qu
environmenta
nutritional int
School
mCompo
ogram, as de
h student and
ment
‐production)
spect
ate temperatu
ality of food
al atmosphere
take
Food Status R
onents
efined by S.
d staff feedba
volunteers a
ures
e
Report ‐ August
R. Watkins F
ack
nd staff
t 2012
Final