22
Evaluation Presentation to Institute of Medicine Committee to Review National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs Lessons Learned from the NYC SchoolFood Plus Evaluation July 9, 2008 Ted Spitzer, President

Lessons Learned from the NYC SchoolFoodPlus Evaluationiom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Activity Files/Nutrition... · Presentation to Institute of Medicine ... Lessons Learned

  • Upload
    trantu

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Evaluation

Presentation to Institute of Medicine Committee to Review National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs

Lessons Learned from the

NYC SchoolFood Plus EvaluationJuly 9, 2008

Ted Spitzer, President

Evaluation

SchoolFood Plus

• Collaborative, multi-agency effort funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation beginning in 2004

• Goals

– improve school meal programs in order to enhance student health and academic achievement

– strengthen the New York State agricultural economy through the procurement of locally grown foods

• Introduce more fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables through innovative local procurement, recipe development, staff training, cooking, social marketing and food education

Evaluation

New York City Public Schools

Overview

• ~ 860,000 meals daily in 1,450 cafeterias

• ~ 8,000 school food employees

• ~ $125 million food budget

• 85%+ eligible for free or reduced cost meals

• 65-70% of students eat school meals

• 500,000 children overweight, obese or “at-risk”

Evaluation

New York City Public Schools

• Self-operated system

• Limited cooking infrastructure

• Since 2002 reform minded mayor and Commissioner of Education

• Executive Director of SchoolFood has private food service industry background

• Executive chef hired 5 years ago to bring culinary expertise into system

Evaluation

Food Group SchoolFood Plus Recipe

Beans Baked BeansBlack Bean and Corn SaladPasta with Chick Peas and Flame Roasted Peppers & OnionsThree Bean SaladThree Bean Vegetarian ChiliVegetarian Chili

Broccoli and Cauliflower Baked Cauliflower with Tomato and GarlicBroccoli and Cauliflower MedleyBroccoli and Cauliflower Pasta SaladBroccoli with Toasted GarlicCheddar Baked Broccoli with PastaSteamed Broccoli and Roasted Cauliflower

Carrots Braised Carrots and CabbageCarrot Rice PilafCarrots and Peas with Balsamic Glazed OnionsHoney Glazed CarrotsLemon Roasted Carrots

Corn Confetti Corn SaladCorn and Black Eyed Pea StewCorn and Black Eyed Pea Succotash Hot Corn, Red Pepper and Tomato RelishZucchini, Corn, Tomato and Basil Stew

Greens Braised Collards with Chick PeasCheesy Baked SpinachCollards with Sweet Tomato

Potatoes Marinated Potato SaladNew Potatoes and SpinachOven Roasted Red PotatoesPotatoes LyonnaiseRed Potatoes O’BrienSweet Potatoes with Pineapple and Ginger

Rice Cajun Red Beans and RiceSpanish RiceSteamed Brown Rice and VegetablesVegetable “Fried” Rice

Salad Cucumber and Red Onion SaladMarinated Green Bean and Tomato SaladSchool Food Green SaladTropical Slaw with Peanut DressingVery Vegetable Salad

What Worked:

Recipe Development & Implementation

• 40 “plant-based” recipes featuring fresh, whole foods, were written, tested, and placed in the menu cycles

Evaluation

What Worked: Recipe Development & Implementation

• SchoolFood exceeded the goal of menuing the recipes within 62 SchoolFood Plus cafeterias at least 12 times per month and in all cafeterias at least 4 times per month

• Recipes not always served when on menu – actual execution rate about 80%

Menu and Service by Food Category, SFP Cafeterias (N=62) Sep 2005 - June 2006

CategoryOn Menu (n=5452)

Served (n=4105)

Implementation Rate

Beans 662 499 75%

Broccoli/Cauliflower 506 458 91%

Carrots 310 248 80%

Corn 700 539 77%

Greens 494 392 79%

Potatoes 487 317 65%

Rice 382 191 50%

Salad 1911 1461 76%

Evaluation

What Worked: Staff Training on Cooking Fresh Foods

• Staff training on merits of whole vs. processed foods, knife skills, seasonings, food presentation

• SchoolFood Plus training was incorporated into mainstream training program

SFP Chef Billy Doherty conducting a staff training session.

Evaluation

What Worked: Service Line Improvements

Evaluation

What Worked: Social Marketing

Evaluation

What Worked:

Procurement of Locally Grown Foods

• Creation of “public interest broker” role– An independent agent that facilitates marketing connections and supply

arrangements between public sector buyers and private industry producers (farmers/packers/distributors/processors)

– Creates vision and strategy for procurement innovations

– Pursues multiple strategies simultaneously

– Motivates buyers and sellers to do business with each other

– Designs to scale and for the long term

• Worked within existing budget and procurement systems

Foods purchased that can be produced locally11/2005 – 10/2006

Volume (lbs) $ Spent

Fresh 16,866,735 $7,970,036

Frozen 2,855,607 $1,704,143

Canned 7,867,647 $2,467,271

TOTAL 27,589,989 lbs $12,141,450

Evaluation

What Works: Local ProcurementYear 1 Successes

Summer Fruit

• 87,900 lbs peaches

• 40,700 lbs nectarines

• 6,600 lbs of pears

Non-fat Yogurt

• 4 oz, non-fat yogurt cups made with no artificial colors or flavors

• produced by upstate NY dairy cooperative won bid against Dannon

• ~ 8,000 cases ($74,000) per month

Apple Slices

• 2 ½ oz snack packs

• Made from New York State “Empire” apples Packed in NYS

• ~ $4 million yearly purchases

Evaluation

What Works: Local ProcurementYear 2 Successes

• Strong buy-in from SchoolFood

• Farmer relationships solidified

• Summer fruit tripled in volume and revenue to $125,000+

• Locally grown and processed Carrot Crunchers introduced into schools

• Local frozen vegetable blends developed

• National press recognition

• The New York Times, October 19, 2007

Evaluation

What Worked:

Nutrition education linked to cafeteria

• CookShop Classroom – sensory-based exploration and cooking curriculum for Pre-K to 2nd grade

• Teaches same foods as SchoolFoodPlus recipes

• Expanded into 130 classrooms, 2,470 students

• Adapted for school garden and farm opportunities

PS 15 students at Red Hook Community Farm

Evaluation

What Worked:

Partnership

• Challenges too big for school food service department alone

• SchoolFood Plus brought together city and state government, nonprofit, and university partners

– Attracted new resources

– Created enthusiasm and encouraged innovation

• Most importantly, attitudes changed

Evaluation

What are the challenges?Changing eating habits

• Pre and post digital images from plate waste study of SchoolFoodPlus recipes: Summer Corn Stew

Evaluation

What are the challenges? Food from “home”

Not much variety

54% of the lunches have only one food item and 86% have two or fewer.

The most common lunch? A bag of chips and a sugar drink. More than 17% of the lunches from home contained only chips and sugar drinks.

Evaluation

What are the challenges?

Food from “home”

Food most likely to bring from home: chips

43% of the meals contained chips – with 9% of the lunches having more than one bag.

Sandwiches were a distant second, appearing in 24% of the lunches, followed by cookies or brownies in 20%.

Evaluation

What are the challenges? Food from “home”

Few fresh fruits or vegetables

Fewer than one-fifth of the lunches contained a fresh fruit or vegetable.

By comparison, 35% of the lunches had candy,

gummies, cookies or brownies.

Evaluation

Sugar drinks and sodas

Of those lunches with drinks, 78% were sugar drinks or sodas.

Juice was included 13% of the time.

Water appeared in 7% of the lunches and milk in 2%.

What are the challenges? Food from “home”

Evaluation

What are the challenges?It’s not just the food

• Lunchtime duration and scheduling

• Cafeteria environment and monitors

• Styrofoam trays and sporks

Evaluation

What are the challenges?

• Inadequate funds: low federal reimbursement and local unwillingness to fund school meals

– 76¢ per meal food cost

• Changes take time, trust between partners, and sustained leadership

• Need culture that rewards innovations and improvements in food quality and food service

Evaluation

Conclusion

• “If you can do it here, you can do it anywhere…”