Good article here by a colleague in the biometric space on the virtues of deploying a biometric fingerprint solution for identification in the school lunch line.  The naysayers of this solution often point to the age old card or pin based ID method as just as fast and cheaper.  Cheaper yes—faster no way.  Most students are using 5-7 digit PINS and think how many times per day you mistype your own password sitting at the comfort of your own desk with no one lined up behind you to distract. 

Trader points out the flow created in the line and this is especially true if the biometric solution deployed has a 95% plus first time touch ID rate.  I can only speak for our solution here at FSS.  As the pioneer in biometrics for school lunch only trial and error and persistence to the effort have allowed us to reach this level of success.  It does not hurt to have best in the world hardware and ID software from Sagem at the forefront of our process.

Yes there are cheaper solutions out there and you get what you pay for.  If the solution operates at 80% first time ID success imagine being in line at Walmart and having 1 out of every 5 items in your shopping cart fail to scan and the chaos that would create in your lunch line.  It is solutions like this that you here about when ‘biometrics doesn’t work’ is uttered.

If that is your solution bring us that challenge.  If it isn’t and you are considering biometrics for the first time consider buying from the ONLY POS company that has a totally integrated biometric solution with 12 years of in-field experience. 

It only costs a few dollars more to go first class.

Now Chartwell is under the microscope in Washington D.C. for failure to provide detailed accounting of more than 1.0 million dollars in food service manufacturer rebates.  Under the federally subsidized school meal program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, food service providers such as Chartwell are required to turn over to their school system clients any rebates they receive, but many in the industry believe that the companies routinely find ways to pocket the money instead.

The author of the linked article,  Ed Bruske of theslowcook.com was able to calculate the rebates of D.C. schools at approximately 5% of purchase based on information received thru the Freedom of Information act.  Attorney’s from the schools refused to list the details of these rebates citing that details about the rebates constitute “trade secrets” and that exposing them to public scrutiny would hurt the “competitive position” of Chartwell, the school system’s contracted food service provider.

The rebates appear to have become something of an embarrassment Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s administration. It was at Rhee’s insistence that D.C. public schools move to a managed service provider and the district has been in the headlines recently as a flagship for Michele Obama’s Get Moving and Chefs for Schools initiative.  We sure do not need any more bad press emanating out of D.C. 

Rebates are typically provided for sugary processed foods that certainly do not go along with the proposed new nutritional guidelines for the NSLP.  Perhaps it will all get straightened out when the food manufacturers make the obvious choice to rebate the purchases of carrots, apples and oranges. 

With the ink barely dry on the $20 million dollar check to the state of New York now Sodexho’s business practices are being questioned by neighboring New Jersey.  Sodexho provides service to 73 public schools in the Garden state.

New Jersey’s Attorney General Paula Dow is being asked by several members of the state Assembly to look into the possibility that perhaps the rebates provided to Sodexho are not being returned to the schools.

I don’t see this one stopping anytime soon. My guess is that states are lining up to take their shot at the multi-billion dollar corporation.

It is great to see that some schools are going old school in their menu planning this year.  That being said, the kitchen designs of the last twenty years may indeed prevent many schools from adopting the ‘fresh’ approach to school lunch.

The convenience approach to school foodservice (freezer to plate) is a big obstacle to overcome.   Many schools have little to no cooler space to store fresh fruits and veggies not to mention the expanded prep areas and deep sinks,  typically not included in school kitchens designed post 1980. 

Getting kids to abandon the status quo of ‘we love fast food’ will not be for the timid.  The tendency when one gets push back (and kids will push back) or stalls out is to go back to what works or what we do best.   Failure will not be an option and the fresh broccoli better be green and tender not mushy or tough or you will probably lose the kid forever.

While applauding the efforts of first lady Michelle Obama’s Chefs Move to Schools program it is yet to be seen if the Child Nutrition Bill will pack enough punch to enable schools to really be able to reach the new nutritional standards and not have to reach into already empty pockets to pay for it.  If it works the additional 2-3 billion per year to fund these changes may be a cheap price to pay to reverse the childhood obesity trend.

If it does not address the infrastructure needs at the cafeteria level,  it will be no more effective than the Cash For Clunkers program. 

Nothing new here in food service. 

Rebates, bonus bucks, cash backs and multiple ways for distributors and manufacturers to control the marketplace and give cash, credit back to organizations/people without full disclosure. 

The $20 million found here is like finding a bucket of sand on the Jersey Shore. 

Good luck…

With one in five of America’s children obese or overweight (ouch) everyone from Michelle Obama to Jamie Oliver support changes to the school lunch program. 

With the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Child Nutrition Bill passed in March for a mere $3.5 billion less now comes the compromising and who cares about where we get the money for funding an additional $5 to $8 billion that it would take to fund it. 

FYI spending for the USDA school lunch program came in at roughly $9 billion and at this rate let’s just make it an even $10 billion a year and make it simple.

And this made available for all of you who thought there really is a “free lunch”

Many school districts are expecting a jump of 10% to 30% in the number of free and reduced lunch applicants this fall. 

Since federal and state dollars are competitive and based on poverty level your district better be on its game when it comes to processing applications and making sure everyone who can qualify in your district fills out an application.  

E-rate, Title I and most grants are based on this poverty percentage and having worked in this world for 15 years, it amazes me that this process is often delegated to clerks and treated with about as much importance as a field hockey away game. 

Your school district and as a matter of fact your entire local tax base is depending on you to do this right. 

The Vermont article above has several nice tips.  More to come in the upcoming weeks before school gets started.

A recent post at the Ethicurean blog reminds everyone that only a fraction of the $2.68 the federal government provides for a subsidized school lunch actually goes toward food. According to a 2008 study [PDF] released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a bit less than 40 percent—or $1.07—of that amount is spent on meal ingredients. Schools spend 44.4 percent of their budget on labor and 16.1 percent on “other expenses.”

What kind of meal do you think you could make with $1?

Those figures are relevant to the pilot meal programs we’ve been analyzing this week. The request for proposals [RFPs] published by D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) call for vastly improved food in the two projects, one to deliver “portable” meals, the other to provide meals cooked from scratch.

But there’s a further distinction to be made between school districts providing meals for their students and hiring contractors to make the food. Schools are non-profit entities. Contractors are in business to make a profit. So in addition to dealing with the math outlined above, the vendors who ostensibly will be fulfilling the contract requirements of these two pilot projects also will be looking to pocket some cash.

Those profits represent funds that could be used to improve the quality of the food kids ultimately see on their trays. If you look around the country, you will see that the most progressive public school meal programs are not centered around contractors, but are run by school districts that make their own food.

After Michelle Rhee took office as schools chancellor she essentially announced that D.C. schools were incompetent to run their own food program. DCPS’ food service operation had racked up $30 million in deficits over three years. Declaring that serving food was not a “core competency” of public schools, Rhee hired Chartwells, a giant corporate food service company, to take over

Beginning Sept. 17, about half of South Redford students will be offered free food over the weekend.

The need for Blessings in a Backpack is a “testament of our changing times,” explains Sue Pezovar, who lives in the area served by South Redford schools.

“We’re looking at so many of our young kids who really don’t have adequate food for the weekend, because so many participate in free and reduced lunch,” she said.

Pointing to hunger issues nationwide, Pezovar said, “sometimes you don’t think how those numbers translate to our own individual community.”