This document analyzes alternatives to the school lunch program in Sisters, Oregon and provides recommendations. It summarizes research on other school district programs, presents the results of a student lunch survey, and concludes that a comprehensive wellness program involving the school, community, and businesses offers the best approach. Recommendations include getting student input, changing perceptions of school lunches, and making incremental improvements while focusing on overall wellness.

1. Alternatives to the School Lunch Program:
What we CAN do
Prepared for
Professor Chris Rubio
WR 227 Technical Writing
By
Kathy Johnson
3 June 2012

2. Johnson 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis ..............................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................3
Background .....................................................................................................................3
Fig. 1 Increase in Free Lunch Eligibility.......................................................................3
Fig. 2 School Lunch Eligibility ....................................................................................4
Advantages ......................................................................................................................4
Working Alternatives ......................................................................................................5
The Portland School District lunch program .................................................................5
Farm-to-School Programs ............................................................................................6
Private food service providers ......................................................................................6
Fig. 3 OR School Districts using Food Service Companies...........................................6
Lunch Survey ..................................................................................................................8
Problems ......................................................................................................................8
Explanation of the Results ............................................................................................8
Favorites ......................................................................................................................8
Noteworthy comments .................................................................................................9
Conclusions .....................................................................................................................9
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 10
What we can do now: ................................................................................................. 10
Organization activities: .............................................................................................. 10
Explore options for volunteer labor: ........................................................................... 10
Menu Ideas ................................................................................................................ 11
Works Cited .................................................................................................................. 12

3. Johnson 2
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 13
Tables ............................................................................................................................ 14
Table 1a – Lunch Survey Pg. 1 ................................................................................... 14
Table 1b – Lunch Survey Pg. 2 .................................................................................. 15
Table 2 – Chartwells Secondary Menu for Western Region ....................................... 15

4. Johnson 3
THESIS
Improvements need to be made to the school lunch program; however, it is not enough to
just substitute one menu for another. Existing models and research can be used to identify
problems, suggest options and work toward the goal of a total wellness program.
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY
It is evident that there are many concerned educators, parents and medical professionals
involved in this topic. There is little disagreement that something needs to be done; however,
there is much discussion about how to do it.
While reform of the current lunch system seems like an overwhelming task, even for a
district the size of Sisters, much research has been done by others and working models are
available to help.
The purpose of my research is to provide a fact finding report that will help lead to
changes in the current school lunch program. I have proposed alternatives which can be used as
talking points for future discussions with school administrators, the school board and the
community.
BACKGROUND
It is not surprising to see that the need for free and reduced priced meals in Oregon has
increased over 20% since 1995 (Fig. 1). With such a large and growing number of children
using the services, it would irresponsible to continue on the path we’re on when so many studies
point to long term health problems resulting from a poor diet. The schools are not responsible
for everything, however; educational institutions have a responsibility and the opportunity to
educate in the matters of health, exercise, and nutrition as well as reading and writing.
Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Meals
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0% Percentage of
30.0%
25.0% Students
20.0% Eligible for
15.0%
10.0% Free and…
5.0%
0.0%
2007…
2011…
1995…
1996…
1997…
1998…
1999…
2000…
2001…
2002…
2003…
2004…
2005…
2006…
2008…
2009…
2010…
Fig. 1 Increase in Free Lunch Eligibility

5. Johnson 4
The following graph shows the number of students currently participating in the free or
reduced price lunch program as well as those students who are not eligible. It is evident that
many children rely on this program for lunch. We can also see that 786 children, or 65%, are not
using the program. With positive changes to the current lunch program, we could increase
participation. Increased participation can help offset costs of improvement and the loss of
revenue from other sources such as vending machines. The school will receive an additional
$.26 per meal above the cash price for those children who buy their lunch at full price.
As a parent, I know that I would welcome the opportunity to send lunch money instead of
lunch, if I was confident that it would be both nutritious and enjoyable for my children.
Reduced
66
5.45%
Not Eligible
Eligible for Free
Lunch
Free Lunch
Eligible for
359
Reduced Lunch
30%
Not Eligible Lunch Eligibility
786
Sisters School
65%
District
2011 - 2012
Total
Fig. 2 School Lunch Eligibility
ADVANTAGES
There are numerous advantages to implementing a comprehensive wellness program for
the district. “Anecdotal reports from schools with healthful and flavorful food indicate that
teachers have started eating with students, attendance rates are higher, and fewer students fall
asleep in class or commit vandalism and violence at school”. (Hinman 21). Reports also indicate
higher participation rates even among full paying students. Changing the focus from an
underfunded entitlement program to a comprehensive wellness program will meet the needs of
all students and create positive community spirit.

6. Johnson 5
In a broader sense, I envision a comprehensive wellness program that could grow and
thrive in Sisters. It could become a community project which benefits local businesses as well as
attracting visitors. A wellness program could be designed in ways similar to the Americana
1
Project but instead of being based on music and the arts, based on health and wellness.
WORKING ALTERNATIVES
I have identified three working alternatives to the Sisters School District lunch program.
My attention has been on research and models primarily in Oregon schools. The Portland area
has done extensive work and has been implementing a Farm to School program which integrates
education, nutrition and food service. This is a good place to start.
THE PORTLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT LUNCH PROGRAM
A visit to the Portland School District’s Nutritional
Services website will give you a glimpse of what they’ve
accomplished. They have a very ambitious menu, a
commitment “to be[ing] the most successful urban school
district to educate palates, inspire culinary curiosity, and
nourish the health of the community through school meals“
as well as a staff of 240 to make this happen. I believe that
their success is the result of their commitment to combining nutrition and exercise, and involving
the children and the community in a total wellness program.
The Abernathy Report, “New on the Menu” was instrumental in giving direction to the
Portland Program. In 2005-2006, the Abernathy Elementary School in southeast Portland
became the testing ground for new food policy and practice – [it was] ‘the district’s first
integrated program – with the garden, the classroom, and the lunchroom all supporting each
other” (3). The results of this program yielded a wealth of information and perspective giving
direction to their new program. They found answers to questions like; how much will it cost?
And; Will the kids eat the food? Some of the results are what you would expect. They found
that “food is cheap and labor is expensive”. The surprises were that participation rose by three
percent, the lunch room became a place of school pride with teachers eating in the cafeteria with
1
Local program encompassing music and art in the school and community

7. Johnson 6
the children, and when the children were faced with new and unfamiliar menu items, the kids
responded enthusiastically (9, 16).
FARM-TO-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Farm to School programs are a component to a healthy lunch program. By definition,
Farm to School programs encourage cooperation between schools and local food producers to
provide locally sourced food and produce to school cafeterias as well as benefit the local
businesses. By design, farm to school programs increase consumption of fruits and vegetables as
well as connecting the cafeteria to the classroom. In addition, according to the USDA website
farm to school relationships include farmers, ranchers, and fishermen, as well as many types of
local food businesses.
For Sisters, working on the greenhouse is a step in the right direction. Betty Izumi finds
that ‘farm to school programs are highly diverse. Programs include one-time events such as
harvest festivals, ongoing programs such as school gardens, or even fundraisers that take
advantage of locally grown products”( 335).
Some suggest that choosing farm to school sources can benefit school food budgets. I
believe that taking advantage of seasonal availability can help, however, preparation costs can
require more labor and therefore actually increase food costs.
It is generally understood by those in the farm to school community that to be successful,
a program must not only make changes to the food that is served in the cafeteria, but also back
up those changes by connecting them to the classroom and community. The Farm to School
concept goes beyond the purpose of providing food, accomplishing many things important to an
all-inclusive wellness program.
12 Chartwells PRIVATE FOOD SERVICE
6% 23 PROVIDERS
11%
Sodexo
None
One of the advantages of private
food service providers is the ability
177
83% 221 Total to walk in and take over the whole
Oregon
School lunch program for a school district.
Districts
They will do meal planning and
Fig. 3 OR School Districts using Food Service Companies

8. Johnson 7
preparation within existing government guidelines, provide staffing, include nutrition education,
and promote the program in an attempt to increase participation. Figure 3 shows the number of
Oregon school districts contracting with food service providers. As shown, 83% of the districts
are not using these companies. One of my concerns for this option is that it is merely changing
one processed lunch menu for another. Other concerns include the effect on local businesses
from a closed campus policy (Bliss), as well as a loss or reclassification of existing school
employees. If the decision is made to outsource food services, it is essential that the district
communicate their goals to the vendor and fully understand the terms of the contract. Visiting
other schools with similar programs can help the transition and to determine if this is the right
path to take.
Chartwells submitted a proposal to the Sisters School District in May 2008, however,
there were unresolved issues relating to meal costs and staffing concerns. Jeffrey Vigue, the
Northwest Representive for Chartwells answered several of my general questions regarding their
program:
 What is the cost per meal? “The cost per meal is always determined by the
individual school district. Chartwells may suggest price increases but the
final decision rests with the local school board.”
 Is there an average increase in the number of lunches served after
Chartwells becomes the provider? “It will vary from account to account but
as a general rule of thumb, 10%-15% increase in participation.”
 Do you know the number of school districts, similar in size, contracting
with Chartwells? “Once again are you asking about similar to Sisters? In
the West Region we probably have 5-6 accounts similar in size to Sisters.”
 You indicated that the impact on employees and local businesses was a
main concern. Are the cafeterias staffed by Chartwells employees? “In the
West, ½ of our accounts are Chartwells employees (District employees that
were terminated by the district and rehired by Chartwells and ½ are still
district employees. In Oregon, we can only contract to do management of
the district’s food service program and employees must remain on the
district payroll.”

9. Johnson 8
 Do you have samples of current menus? See attached (Table 2). These are
our starter menus for the West Coast Schools Division and can be modified
based on the specific client and their needs and space limitations.
LUNCH S URVEY
In an attempt to collect information from our most important consumer group, the kids, I
prepared a survey which was given to about 83 sixth graders (Table 1a & 1b). My purpose was
to get as much information as practical from the children which would help to identify their likes
and dislikes, as well as their feelings about, and their participation in the cafeteria. As Leland
Bliss mentioned, the cafeteria habits of all grade levels are different, so this survey best describes
middle school children’s preferences. Further surveys would be very helpful. The children
appreciated being asked and included.
PROBLEMS
While examining the results, I did find problems with some of my survey questions. The
section of the survey, choosing one or the other, was not clear to them, so I did not receive the
information I desired. My intention was to give a choice between two different foods with
similar nutritional values and see what they liked best. What I got was their one favorite choice
from each column. The question asking why they didn’t eat in the cafeteria yielded many
‘Other’ responses due to the fact that I didn’t include a N/A.
EXPLANATION OF THE RESULTS
Nearly twice as many children never eat in the cafeteria. This is consistent with
district’s participation graph (Fig. 2). Almost ALL the children said they like homemade lunches
‘much better’. If there was a preference, cold lunches were chosen to be more popular than hot
5:1.
The questions about participating in the food program were mixed. You can see
the specific results below. There were quite a few ‘no’ responses. This could be because of the
reputation of the cafeteria, or not knowing what would be required of them.
FAVORITES
The children love fruit – this was an overwhelming response.

10. Johnson 9
NOTEWORTHY COMMENTS
“I would like to see good, healthy food” “[I]Would like to see good food”
“Chicken nuggets bounce” “Stuff that’s real”
“It is all gross” “Healthier / Organic”
“By the way, the hot dogs bounce 6-7 feet” “I’ve never eaten in the cafeteria
Suggestions for the Favorite School Lunch Favorite Home Meals
Cafeteria
Tater Tot Casserole (Top 7) Potatoes
Fettuccini Alfredo Chicken Nuggets Pasta
Mexican, Chinese, Italian Nothing Pizza
Chef Salad Cinnamon Rolls Anything
More tasty fruit Sub sandwiches Teriyaki
Taco Bar Pizza Steak
Baked Potatoes Mozzarella sticks Ribs
Steak Tater Tots Enchiladas
Grilled chicken Sandwiches
Subway Sandwiches Salad
Salad bar Mini-meatloaves
Hamburgers Quiche
…and more
CONCLUSIONS
Reform faces the following challenges: Limited funding, USDA red tape, lack of
adequate personnel, and the stigma associated with the school food program. However, the
current political and public environment appears favorable to change. Liam Julian, a research
fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, refers to the school food program as a
“behemoth” and reminds us that change does not come all at once (52).
It is generally accepted that the current system is failing but not everyone agrees on how
to fix it. Julian says it well when he distinguishes between the “revolutionaries” and the
“incrementalists”. “Where visible and positive change on cafeteria plates has occurred it has

11. Johnson 10
occurred locally with district food services directors who hope to meld the best ideas of the
revolutionaries with the unglamorous work of the incrementalists (52).
The research conducted by David Katz, et al. calls attention to the obvious fact that
schools are not the only source of the obesity problem. It is much more than just a school
problem and therefore cannot be effective by itself. Interventions by schools alone will not
change the current health crisis (25). The most effective program will we a wellness program
where the school, community and businesses work together to provide “quality nutrition
education and promotion, improved meals facilities, … improved physical education and
physical activity environments in addition to healthier food offerings throughout the campus.”
(Woodward-Lopez, et al 2143).
RECOMMENDATIONS
WHAT WE CAN DO NOW:
 Find out what the kids want and get them involved.
 Change the stigma associated with eating in the cafeteria.
 Encourage teachers and parents to eat with students.
 Focus on the concept of wellness.
 Make incremental changes as practical and possible.
 Visit other schools working toward the same nutrition goals.
 Hold community brainstorming sessions.
 Start a discussion using the local paper.
ORGANIZATION ACTIVITIES:
 Set up a committee to review current lunch program, set goals, propose changes and
follow results.
 Get all the details of the current lunch meal program
 Become familiar with the current and upcoming government regulations.
 Research the possibility of grant opportunities from public and private sources.
EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR VOLUNTEER LABOR:
Enlist the help of others to help fill the increased labor needs. Possibilities include work
study partnership with COCC and the high school, community volunteers, and the medical
community. Develop partnerships with local businesses could provide special meal days, for
example Subway Fridays and rotisserie chicken from Rays.

12. Johnson 11
MENU IDEAS
 Begin to make menu substitutions - Roast/Rotisserie Chicken instead of chicken nuggets,
Roast vegetables instead of French fries.
 Experiment with new ideas and suggestions.
 Follow with Ann Cooper’s simple “When to say No” policy against highly processed
foods, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, fried foods, refined sugars and flours (76).

13. Johnson 12
WORKS CITED
Cooper, Ann. "Lunch Lessons." Educational Leadership 68.8 (2011): 75-78. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 1 May 2012.
Gonzalez, Martin , et al. "School Wellness Policies: Perceptions, Barriers, And Needs Among
School Leaders And Wellness Advocates." Journal Of School Health 80.11 (2010): 527-
535. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 May 2012.
Hinman, Kristen. "The School Lunch Wars." Wilson Quarterly 35.2 (2011): 16-21. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 1 May 2012.
Izumi, BettyWright, D.Hamm, Michael. "Farm to School Programs: Exploring The Role Of
Regionally-Based Food Distributors In Alternative Agrifood Networks." Agriculture &
Human Values 27.3 (2010): 335. Associates Programs Source Plus. Web. 16 May 2012.
Joshi, Anupama, and Andrea Misako Azuma. "Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Program
Evaluation, Resources and Recommendations." Occidental College (2008) National Farm
to School Program. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/publications/BFfullreport.pdf
Julian, Liam. "Why School Lunch Is Nasty!" Policy Review 163 (2010): 43-53. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 14 May 2012.
Kane, Debra, et al. “The Impact of Seven Cents” Examining the Effects of a $.07 per Meal
Investment on Local Economic Development, Lunch Participation Rates, and Student
Preferences for Fruits and Vegetables in Two Oregon School Districts. Ecotrust. Web. 14
May 2012. http://www.ecotrust.org/farmtoschool/Kaiser-Report_FINAL_110630.pdf
Katz, David L., et al. "Teaching Healthful Food Choices To Elementary School Students And
Their Parents: The Nutrition Detectives™ Program." Journal Of School Health 81.1
(2011): 21-28. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 May 2012.
LaFaive, Michael D. "Mt. Pleasant Schools Taste Success with Cafeteria Privatization."
Michigan Privatization Report. Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 11 June 2001. Web.
12 Apr. 2012. http://www.mackinac.org/3514.
“New on the Menu: District wide changes to school food start in the kitchen at Portland’s
Abernethy Elementary”. Portland Public Schools Nutrition Services, Injury Free

14. Johnson 13
Coalition for Kids, and Ecotrust.
http://www.ecotrust.org/farmtoschool/Abernethy_report.pdf .
Newman, ConstanceClauson, AnnetteRalston, Katherine. "Balancing Nutrition, Participation,
And Cost In The National School Lunch Program." Amber Waves: The Economics Of
Food, Farming, Natural Resources, & Rural America 6.4 (2008): 32. Associates
Programs Source Plus. Web. 16 May 2012.
"Pilot Scratch Kitchen Program Earns a Passing Grade." Ecotrust. PR Newswire 10 Oct. 2006.
Academic OneFile. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
Sack-Min, Joetta. "The Qutsourcing Question." American School Board Journal 195.6 (2008):
22-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 May 2012. McClure, Ann. "Nutritious
Outsourcing." District Administration 42.10 (2006): 78. Academic Search Premier. Web.
1 May 2012.
United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. National School Lunch, Special
Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments / Maximum
Reimbursement Rates. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 139: 43256-43257, Notices: 20 Jul.
2011. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/naps/NAPs11-12.pdf.
United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. “Contracting with Food Service
Management Companies: Guidance for School Food Authorities.” FSMC Guidance for
SFAs: Apr. 2009 http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/guidance/fsmcguidance-sfa.pdf
Wharton, Christopher M., Michael Long, and Marlene B. Schwartz. "Changing Nutrition
Standards In Schools: The Emerging Impact On School Revenue." Journal Of School
Health 78.5 (2008): 245-251. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 May 2012.
Woodward-Lopez, et al. "Lessons Learned From Evaluations Of California's Statewide School
Nutrition Standards." American Journal Of Public Health 100.11 (2010): 2137-2145.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 May 2012.
INTERVIEWS
Bliss, Leland. Operations Manager, Sisters School District. Interview. 8 May 2012.
Vigue, Jeffrey. Northwest Representative, Chartwells. Phone and email. 20 Apr. 2012

15. Johnson 14
TABLES
Table 1a – Lunch Survey Pg. 1
Companies
Source: Survey Prepared by Kathy Johnson. May 2012. Print.

16. Johnson 15
Table 1b – Lunch Survey Pg. 2
Source: Survey Prepared by Kathy Johnson. May 2012. Print.

17. Johnson 16
Table 2 – Chartwells Secondary Menu for Western Region
Source: Provided by Chartwells. 2012. Print.