state agency administrative review summary · site monitoring, local school wellness policy, smart...

This institution is an equal opportunity provider,

STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY

The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), requires a unified accountability system designed to ensure that participating school food authorities (SFAs) comply with National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) requirements. The Act also requires an accountability system that conducts Administrative Reviews to evaluate Program requirements for NSLP and SBP during a three-year cycle. The Administrative Review process provides a consistent comprehensive evaluation of school meals’ programs by State Agencies (SAs) of SFAs participating in the NSLP and SBP as well as other Federal Programs, and includes both Critical and General Areas of Review. The scope of the Administrative Review focuses on two primary review components: Critical Areas of Review and General Areas of Review. The Critical Areas of Review are Performance Standard 1 and Performance Standard 2. Performance Standard 1 focuses on the certification and benefit issuance process and the accuracy of meal counting and claiming. Performance Standard 2 focuses on whether meals claimed for reimbursement meet meal pattern and nutritional quality requirements. The General Areas of Review are Resource Management, Civil Rights, SFA On-site Monitoring, Local School Wellness Policy, Smart Snacks in School, Professional Standards, Water, Food Safety, Storage, Buy American, Reporting and Recordkeeping, School Breakfast Program and Summer Food Service Program Outreach. The West Virginia Department of Education Office of Child Nutrition collaborates with School Food Authorities to complete the Administrative Review to ensure program integrity and increase overall compliance, with the following objectives:

Determine if the School Food Authority is meeting all federal and state School Nutrition Programs (SNP) requirements

Provide focused technical assistance (TA) to assist the SFA with correcting any findings Secure necessary corrective action documentation demonstrating the SFA’s permanent

corrections Assess fiscal action and, when applicable, recover improperly paid funds

It is the Office of Child Nutrition’s priority to provide clear and consistent communication, ample TA, and excellent customer service during the transition to the new review process. Each sponsor of the National School Lunch Program is reviewed once every three-year cycle. It is important to note that not every school is visited during the Administrative Review process, the Office of Child Nutrition utilizes the USDA approved criteria to determine the specific schools visited. This report, issued by the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Child Nutrition (OCN) provides the results of the review. The corresponding pages provide county and school level summaries of the findings noted by the OCN. Each of the findings requires the county to provide a written corrective action response to the OCN that outline steps to be implemented to ensure future compliance.


Beginning in school year 2016-2017, the United States Department of Agriculture’s final rule requires State agencies to report the final results of the administrative review to the public in an accessible and easily understood manner. The final rule requires State agencies to post a summary of the most recent final administrative review results for each School Food Authority on the State agency’s publicly viewed website, for WV this website is https://wvde.state.wv.us/child-nutrition/school-nutrition-programs/resources.html. The results summary must remain available on the website until the county receives a new administrative review (which is still once every 3 years) At the conclusion of the on-site portion of the Administrative Review the review team from the WV Department of Education, Office of Child Nutrition conducts an exit conference with representatives from the School Food Authority to notify them of any program findings identified, the extent of the findings, and a preliminary assessment of the actions needed to correct the findings. The exit conference is an opportunity to establish an agreed-upon Corrective Action Plan that identifies the needed corrective action and the timeframes for those actions. The Corrective Action Plan must identify:

Administrative Review finding(s) The corrective action(s) required The timeframe(s) by which the corrective action(s) must be completed Any documentation the SA expects the SFA to provide to demonstrate corrective action

was completed Prior to closing out the Administrative Review, the Office of Child Nutrition must obtain documented corrective action from the SFA for any findings in either the Critical or General Areas that were identifies during an Administrative Review. Unless the SFA provides documented corrective action at the time of the Administrative Review, the SFA must send written notification and supporting documentation to the SA within 30 calendar days certifying that it has completed the corrective action required for each finding, as well as corresponding dates of completion.


STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Potomac Comprehensive Diagnostic and Training Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Potomac Center Main Campus Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): October 18, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: October 18, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: _April 3, 2017 ________________ General Program Participation

1. What Child Nutrition Programs does the School Food Authority participate in? (Select all that apply) *Please note that while the school food authority may participate in the selected programs not all schools are eligible for the programs listed below. ☒ School Breakfast Program ☒ National School Lunch Program ☐ Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ☒ Afterschool Snack ☐ Special Milk Program ☐ Seamless Summer Option

2. Does the School Food Authority operate under any Special Provisions? (Select all that

apply) Please note that while the school food authority may participate in the selected provisions not all schools are eligible for the provisions listed below. ☐ Community Eligibility Provision ☐ Special Provision 1 ☐ Special Provision 2 ☐ Special Provision 3

Review Findings

3. Were any findings identified during the review of this School Food Authority? ☒ Yes ☐ No If yes, please indicate the areas and what issues were identified in the table below.


Please note: The sponsor has corrected all finding identified during the review. YES NO REVIEW FINDINGS

X

A. Program Access and Reimbursement YES NO

X Certification and Benefit Issuance X Verification X Meal Counting and Claiming

X Other Finding(s) Details: Sponsor:

Records are not retained for 3 years after the final claim for reimbursement for the fiscal year or until resolution of any audits.

Records were not reported to the Department of Education state agency as required.

Main Campus: SFA could not provide documentation to confirm on-site observations

were conducted by February 1, 2016. SFA could not provide documentation to confirm that program

monitoring had occurred in the After School Snack Program within the first 4 weeks of operation.

X

B. Meal Patterns and Nutritional Quality YES NO

X Meal Components and Quantities X Offer versus Serve X Dietary Specifications and Nutrient Analysis

X Other Finding(s) Details: Main Campus

Fluid milk was not available in at least the two required varieties throughout the serving period on all meals service lines.

Food Production Records for breakfast and/or lunch were not completed daily

Site did not have a written food safety plan Food Production Records for Afterschool Snacks do not list each meal

component and/or reflect that the planned portion sizes meet the meal pattern component requirements.

X

C. School Nutrition Environment YES NO

X Food Safety X Local School Wellness Policy X Competitive Foods X Other

Finding(s) Details: Sponsor:


SFA did not have a copy of the most recent assessment on the implementation of the Local School Wellness Policy.

X

D. Civil Rights Finding(s) Details: Sponsor:

SFA was unable to (a) provide documentation of Civil Rights training, or (b) provide documentation of who attended the training, or (c.) provide documentation showing what topics were covered in the training.

Special Dietary Needs forms were not completed following State requirements.

SFA does not have a procedure for receiving and processing complaints alleging discrimination within the FNS School Meal Program.

X

E. State Addendum Finding(s) Details:


STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Mineral County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Frankfort High School 2. Frankfort Middle School 3. Keyser Primary School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): October 15, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: November 18, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: April 3, 2017 General Program Participation

1. What Child Nutrition Programs does the School Food Authority participate in? (Select all that apply) *Please note that while the school food authority may participate in the selected programs not all schools are eligible for the programs listed below. ☒ School Breakfast Program ☒ National School Lunch Program ☒ Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ☒ Afterschool Snack ☐ Special Milk Program ☐ Seamless Summer Option


apply) Please note that while the school food authority may participate in the selected provisions not all schools are eligible for the provisions listed below. ☒ Community Eligibility Provision ☐ Special Provision 1 ☐ Special Provision 2 ☐ Special Provision 3

Review Findings

3. Were any findings identified during the review of this School Food Authority? ☒ Yes ☐ No


If yes, please indicate the areas and what issues were identified in the table below.


X


X Certification and Benefit Issuance X Verification X Meal Counting and Claiming X Other

Finding(s) Details:

X


X Meal Components and Quantities X Offer versus Serve X Dietary Specifications and Nutrient Analysis X Other

Finding(s) Details: Keyser High School:

Portion sizes did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the review period.

SFA's food sale policies were not in compliance with the Smart Snacks or with WV Board of Education Policy 4321.1 requirements.

Frankfort Middle School:

Offer vs. Serve was not being implemented properly by the reviewed school at breakfast and/or lunch.

X


X Food Safety X Local School Wellness Policy

X Competitive Foods X Other

Finding(s) Details: Frankfort Middle School:

There was no signage or signage does not explain what constitutes a reimbursable meal to students.


X

D. Civil Rights Finding(s) Details: Frankfort Middle School:

The USDA "and Justice for All" poster was not displayed in a prominent location, or it was not visible to recipients of benefits.

X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Summers County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Summers Middle School Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): October 20, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: December 22, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: ___April 3, 2017________________________ General Program Participation




Review Findings




X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: Summers Middle School:

During the review period Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement for breakfast and lunch were offered and served to students.


Based on the targeted menu review, the school did not meet the Dietary Specifications. Specifically, calories did not meet the required range for lunch.

X



X D. Civil Rights Finding(s) Details:

X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Hancock County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Oak Glen High School 2. Weirton Elementary School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): October 26, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: October 28, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: April 3, 2017 _________________ General Program Participation




Review Findings





X


X Certification and Benefit Issuance X Verification x Meal Counting and Claiming X Other

Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: Oak Glen High School:


X




Finding(s) Details: Oak Glen High School:

Foods or beverages sold during the school day did not meet Smart Snack Standards


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Jefferson County Schools Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Jefferson High School 2. Shepherdstown Elementary 3. Shepherdstown Middle

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): November 1, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: November 30, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: _April 3, 2017___________________________ General Program Participation




Review Findings





X



X Other Finding(s) Details: School Food Authority:

The required Paid Lunch Equity tool was not complete for 2015 or 2016 prior to review.

X



Finding(s) Details: Jefferson High School:

Meals observed for the day of review did not contain enough grain bread.

X


X Food Safety X Local School Wellness Policy X Competitive Foods

X Other Finding(s) Details: School Food Authority:

The Local School Wellness Policy is missing the required nutrition promotion element.

Jefferson High School: There was no signage showing/stating what constitutes a

reimbursable breakfast.

X

D. Civil Rights Finding(s) Details:

X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Elkins Mountain School Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Elkins Mountain School Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): November 2, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: December 7, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: April 3, 2017 ______________ General Program Participation

1. What Child Nutrition Programs does the School Food Authority participate in? (Select all that apply) *Please note that while the school food authority may participate in the selected programs not all schools are eligible for the programs listed below. ☒ School Breakfast Program ☒ National School Lunch Program ☐ Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ☐ Afterschool Snack ☐ Special Milk Program ☐ Seamless Summer Option



Review Findings




X


X Certification and Benefit Issuance X Verification x Meal Counting and Claiming X Other

Finding(s) Details:

X


X Meal Components and Quantities X Offer versus Serve

X Dietary Specifications and Nutrient Analysis X Other

Finding(s) Details: Elkins Mountain School

Based on the targeted menu review, the school did not meet the Dietary Specifications. Specifically, the calorie range for breakfast and lunch were not met and the sodium amount for breakfast exceeded the allotted range.

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Upshur County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Buckhannon-Upshur Middle School 2. Union Elementary School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): November 3, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: December 7, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: __April 3, 2017 _______________ General Program Participation




Review Findings





X


X Certification and Benefit Issuance X Verification

X Meal Counting and Claiming X Other

Finding(s) Details: Union Elementary School:

Point of Service (POS) snack counts by student/benefit category were not maintained.

X




Finding(s) Details: Buckhannon-Upshur Middle School:

Based on the targeted menu review, the school did not meet the Dietary Specifications. Specifically, calories range for breakfast and lunch were not being met.

X




X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Taylor County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Taylor County Middle School Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): November 14, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: November 15, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: ___April 3, 2017 ________________ General Program Participation




Review Findings




X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: Taylor County Middle School

All observed meals during the review period Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

X



Finding(s) Details:

X


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Randolph County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. George Ward School 2. Harman School 3. Third Ward Elementary

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): November 11, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: November 18, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: April 3, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings





X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: George Ward School:

All required meal components were not available on every meal service line.

All reviewed Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

Harman School All reviewed Food Production Records and other supporting

documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.


Portion sizes did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the day of review.

Third Ward Elementary All reviewed Food Production Records and other supporting



Portion sizes did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the day of review.

X





Finding(s) Details:

X


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Sacred Heart/Charleston Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Sacred Heart Elementary Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): November 14, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: November 16, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: __April 3, 2017__________ General Program Participation




Review Findings




X



Finding(s) Details: During verification applications were incorrectly verified.

X



Finding(s) Details:

Records for the review period (production records and other supporting documentation) indicated that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirements were offered and served to students

All meals observed for the day of review counted for reimbursement did not contain all of the required meal components.

X



Finding(s) Details: A copy of the written food safety plan was not available.

X


The correct USDA "In Justice for All" poster was not available and was not in a visible location for students.

X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Mingo County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Kermit K8 2. Tug Valley High School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): December 5, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: December 9, 2016 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____April 3, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings

3. Were any findings identified during the review of this School Food Authority? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, please indicate the areas and what issues were identified in the table below.


Please note: The sponsor has corrected all finding identified during the review.

YES NO REVIEW FINDINGS

X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Raleigh County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Beckley Elementary 2. Crab Orchard Elementary 3. Independence High 4. Independence Middle

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): December 5, 2016 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: January 4, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: __April 3, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings





X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: Beckley Elementary:

Fluid milk was not available in at least the two required varieties throughout the serving period on all meals service lines.

Meals during the review period Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

Crab Orchard Elementary: Fluid milk was not available in at least the two required varieties

throughout the serving period on all meals service lines. Meals during the review period Food Production Records and other

supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

Independence High School:

Planned menu quantities did not meet meal pattern requirements for the review period.

Independence Middle School:


X C. School Nutrition Environment


YES NO X Food Safety X Local School Wellness Policy X Competitive Foods X Other

X

D. Civil Rights Finding(s) Details: Independence High School:

The USDA "and Justice for All" poster was not displayed in a prominent location, or it was not visible to recipients of benefits.

X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: St. Francis De Sales Schools Visited During the Review:

1. St. Francis De Sales Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): January 3, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: January 3, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____April 3, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings

3. Were any findings identified during the review of this School Food Authority? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, please indicate the areas and what issues were identified in the table below.




X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Wayne County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Buffalo Middle School 2. Crum Elementary School 3. Wayne High School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): January 11, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: January 13, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: _April 3, 2017 __________________________ General Program Participation




Review Findings





X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: Crum Elementary

There was no signage explaining what constitutes a reimbursable meal During the review period Food Production Records and other supporting


Portion sizes did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the review period.

Wayne High School Planned menu quantities did not meet meal pattern requirements for the

review period. During the review period Food Production Records and other supporting


X



Finding(s) Details: Crum Elementary

A copy of the written food safety plan was not available during the review.


X


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Lincoln County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Duval PreK-8 2. Harts PK-8

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): January 18, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: January 20, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____April 3, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings




X


X Certification and Benefit Issuance X Verification

X Meal Counting and Claiming X Other

Finding(s) Details: Harts PK-8

At the selected school(s), each type of meal service line as observed on the day of review did not provide an accurate count by eligibility category at the

X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Monongalia County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Morgantown High School 2. North Elementary 3. Suncrest Middle School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): February 1, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: February 2, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ___April 3, 2017_______________ General Program Participation




Review Findings





X



X Other Finding(s) Details: SFA

The SFA did not complete verification prior to November 15th SFA did not complete on-site breakfast monitoring prior to February 1st SFA did not submit reports to the State Agency as required.

X



Finding(s) Details: Suncrest Middle School


X



Finding(s) Details:

X


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Putnam County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Buffalo High 2. Hometown Elementary 3. Poca High 4. Winfield Middle

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): February 8, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: February 14, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____April 3, 2017 General Program Participation

1. What Child Nutrition Programs does the School Food Authority participate in? (Select all that apply) *Please note that while the school food authority may participate in the selected programs not all schools are eligible for the programs listed below. ☒ School Breakfast Program ☒ National School Lunch Program ☐ Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ☒ Afterschool Snack ☐ Special Milk Program ☐ Seamless Summer Option



Review Findings





X



X Other Finding(s) Details: SFA

Reports are not submitted to the State Agency as required.

X



Finding(s) Details: Poca High

Planned menu quantities for the review period did not meet meal pattern requirements

During the review period Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

Offer vs. Serve was not being implemented properly by the reviewed school at breakfast.

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Barbour County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Junior Elementary School 2. Philip Barbour High School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): April 6. 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: April 7, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____September 20, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings




X



Finding(s) Details:

X




Finding(s) Details: Philip Barbour High School

Portion sizes (lunch) did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the review period.

Based on the targeted menu review, the school did not meet the Dietary Specifications (Calories, Saturated Fat, Sodium, and Trans Fat for the appropriate age/grade group being served.)

X




Finding(s) Details: Philip Barbour High School

Foods or beverages sold during the school day dID not meet Smart Snack Standards.

X

D. Civil Rights Finding(s) Details: SFA

The USDA Civil Rights Statement was not included in the student handbooks

X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Braxton County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Braxton County Middle School 2. Burnsville School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): April 27, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: April 28, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____September 20, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings




X



X OtherFinding(s) Details: SFA

On-site monitoring reviews for lunch were not completed prior to February 1st.

X




Finding(s) Details: Braxton County Middle School

Portion sizes did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the review period. School was short on legumes for the review week.

Burnsville Middle School

Based on the targeted menu review, the school did not meet the Dietary Specifications (Calories, Saturated Fat, Sodium, and Trans Fat for the appropriate age/grade group being served.)

The SFA’s written food safety plan was not implemented

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Clay County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Clay Middle School 2. H.E. White Elementary

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): March 7, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: March 8, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____September 30, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings




X


Certification and Benefit Issuance Verification Meal Counting and Claiming


The on-site review of breakfast and lunch counting and claiming procedures were not completed prior to February 1.

X


X Meal Components and QuantitiesX Offer versus Serve X Dietary Specifications and Nutrient Analysis X Other

Finding(s) Details: CLAY MIDDLE SCHOOL

All observed breakfast meals during the review period Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

No signage was available at breakfast or lunch to explain what constitutes a reimbursable meal to students

All meals observed on the day of review counted for reimbursement did not contain all of the required meal components.

H.E. WHITE ELEMENTARY Planned menu quantities did not meet the meal pattern requirements

for the review period. All observed meals (lunch) during the review period Food Production

Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

X



Finding(s) Details: SFA

The written food safety plan does not contain the required elements. CLAY MIDDLE SCHOOL

The dates of the two (2) most recent food safety inspections are unavailable or documentation not available to demonstrate health inspections were requested.

A written Food Safety plan copy was not available at the school.


H.E. WHITE ELEMENTARY The dates of the two (2) most recent food safety inspections are

unavailable or documentation not available to demonstrate health inspections were requested.

A written Food Safety plan copy was not available at the school.


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Greenbrier County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Greenbrier West High School 2. Rainelle Elementary School 3. Smoot Elementary School

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): March 13, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: March 28, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____September 20, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings





X



Finding(s) Details:

X



Finding(s) Details: SMOOT ELEMENTARY

Portion sizes for legumes did not meet the minimum amounts per meal pattern requirements and planned menu for the review period.

X



Finding(s) Details:


X



STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: Nicholas County Board of Education Schools Visited During the Review:

1. Birch River Elementary 2. Nicholas County High School 3. SMS

Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): March 14, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: April 5, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____September 30, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings






Certification and Benefit Issuance Verification Meal Counting and Claiming Other

Finding(s) Details:


X Meal Components and QuantitiesX Offer versus ServeX Dietary Specifications and Nutrient Analysis X Other

NCHS The signage at the beginning of the breakfast serving line did not

adequately explain what constitutes a reimbursable meal. During the day of review some students did not take a reimbursable

meal. Planned menu quantities for the review period did not meet meal

pattern requirements for lunch. Based on the targeted menu review, the school did not meet the Dietary

Specifications (Calories, Saturated Fat, Sodium, and Trans Fat for the appropriate age/grade group being served.)

S.M.S Production records and other supporting documentation, for the

review period did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirements were offered and served to students for breakfast and lunch?

For the day of review the minimum daily quantity requirements were not met for the age/grade group being offered.

Free potable water is not available to all students at breakfast or lunch.


X Food Safety Local School Wellness Policy Competitive Foods

X OtherSFA

SFA is not tracking professional standard training hours for managers, staff and other child nutrition personnel.

S.M.S The written food safety plan was not site specific.




STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY School Food Authority Name: St. Francis of Assisi Schools Visited During the Review:

1. St. Francis of Assisi Date of Administrative Review (Entrance Conference Date): May 23, 2017 Date review results were provided to the School Food Authority: June 6, 2017 Date review summary was publicly posted: ____September 20, 2017 General Program Participation




Review Findings





X




Reports are not submitted to the State Agency as required.

X



Finding(s) Details: St. Francis of Assisi

All observed meals (lunch) during the review period Food Production Records and other supporting documentation did not indicate that all of the required meal components per weekly meal pattern requirement were offered and served to students.

X



Finding(s) Details:


X


state agency administrative review summary · site monitoring, local school wellness policy, smart...

Documents