Case Study Research

USDA’s School Food Preparation Study

Project Background

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) contracted ACR to conduct a mixed-methods case study with 36 School Food Authorities (SFAs) during school year 24-25 to address three core research questions:

1. How do SFAs prepare foods?
2. What language do SFAs use to describe their food preparation?
3. What are the current challenges, successes, and impacts of scratch cooking?

The hope for this study was to learn how the USDA and partners in the school food sector could better support SFAs to use more scratch cooking.

The study included five data collection methods: 1) operational questionnaires from all SFAs; 2) 90-minute, virtual interviews with food service directors from all SFAs ; 3) 45-minute virtual interviews with additional staff from 34 SFAs; 4) site visits to a sample 45 kitchens across 10 SFAs; and 5) document collection and analysis of menus, recipes, select financial information, and velocity reports.

ACR Approach

• Recruitment: We developed a detailed sampling plan using data from NCES, the Farm to School Census, and the USDA’s RUC. Using these sample goals, we collaborated with State Agencies and organizations in the space (e.g., Alliance for Healthy Kids), attended professional conferences, and directly reached out to SFAs to recruit a sample of 36 SFAs from 13 states in four USDA regions.
• Measure Development: We developed detailed protocols and guidelines for interviews, observations, recipe coding, and surveys and tested them with a sample of food service staff prior to data collection. We grounded all measures in relevant theory, past research, and best practices to ensure valid and reliable data. We similarly developed and tested a structured site observation form and protocol and held orientation meetings prior to each observation to review the SFA’s data, the school food context in their state/community, and the study objectives. We also developed protocols for requesting, cataloging, filing, and analyzing a range of documents from SFAs. 
• Applied Research: We prioritized visiting as many SFAs and school buildings as possible. This allowed the research team to observe staff as they prepared food and informally discuss their approach, priorities, and concerns, but also taste the food and capture images of food preparation and service that deeply informed the analysis and reporting.

Impact

ACR delivered a comprehensive report detailing insights and recommendations organized around school food operational areas (e.g., staff, equipment, procurement etc.). We also developed four public-facing reports that distilled key insights and recommendations for a range of audiences which USDA will be published in early 2026.

• The State of Scratch Cooking in School Meals
• How State Agencies and Child Nutrition Partners can Support Scratch Cooking in Schools
• How School Food Authorities Use Scratch to Meet Their Program Goals
• Opportunities for Policy Makers to Support Scratch Cooking in Schools

The excerpt below summarizes a key finding from this study, that an investment in scratch cooking may be able to sustain a virtuous cycle:

SFAs are self-operating businesses within their districts, with distinct revenues and expenses that dictate program operations. But a challenging and uncertain budgeting environment threatens to pressure food service directors (FSDs) towards more heat-and-serve meals, even as many SFAs are increasing scratch cooking.

• Food and labor costs are rising. Most SFAs are already minimally staffed, so the need to keep operational costs down usually leads to lower spending on food and more heat-and-serve menu items.
• In this study, food revenues (i.e., federal reimbursements, paid meals, and a la carte sales) covered an average of only 81% of expenses, forcing SFAs to find other funding sources, such as catering and grants.

SFAs shared that scratch cooking can help improve food quality, minimize ultra-processed foods and unwanted ingredients, build healthy student behaviors, and customize meals to meet student preferences. Scratch can also help increase meal participation because students, parents, and community members view scratch cooking in schools favorably. But FSDs need predictable revenue to run their business and invest in their program.

“[My SFA is] 30% free and reduced and we still have 70% plus participation daily. I still can barely make that work with also selling $40,000 of a la carte and a lot of catering.” – Food service director, medium rural SFA

Efforts to provide free meals to all students through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) and through state and local policies have increased and sustained higher meal participation. This predictable reimbursement revenue facilitates investments in jobs, equipment upgrades, and higher quality foods. These investments can sustain a virtuous cycle of more scratch cooking, higher participation, and additional investment.

“Because of CEP and our participation, we have the revenue to buy the equipment and do the things we want to do.” – Food service director, large rural SFA

• SFAs have to divert staff time from food preparation to collect, process, and report meal benefit applications to determine which families qualify for free or reduced-price meals.
• Without direct certification, some schools won’t participate in CEP so they too will have to revert back to collecting applications, which will lower meal participation and reduce revenue for the SFA.
• In both cases, SFAs may revert to more heat-and-serve meals given the additional administrative burden of applications, which will further lower participation and predictable revenue.