document resume title - eric · filmed from best available. copy. u s. department of health....

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 071 203 EA 004 817

AUTHOR Biedermann, Konrad; And OthersTITLE Layout, Equipment, and Work Methods for School Lunch

Kitchens and Serving Lines.INSTITUTION Agricultural Research Service (DOA), Washington,

D.C.REPORT NO ARS-MRR-753PUB DATE Dec 66NOTE 48p..

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Building Plans; Design Needs; *Equipment Standards;

Facility Requirements; Facility Utilization Research;Flow Charts; *Food Handling Facilities; HumanEngineering; *Lunch Programs; Manpower Utilization;Performance Specifications; *Planning (Facilities);Space Classification; Space Utilization; SpatialRelationship; *Task. Analysis; Work Environment

ABSTRACTThe objectives of this study include the development

of (1) guides for the planning and the remodeling .of new schoolkitchens and lunchroom facilities and (2) standards of laborutilization for three sizes of cafeterias. The data reflect theresults of over six weeks of observation and measurement ofoperations in various school kitchens, conferences with the localschool officials and food service specialists, and a review of theapplicable literature. Six Ohio schools chosen for observationrepresented a cross section of elementary and high schools; rural andsuburban communities; and small, medium, and large school lunchprograms. Labor utilization was measured by the work samplingtechnique..In two schools, an additional day of work sampling wasdevoted to a separate study of the effect of kitchen layout andequipment use on actual working time versus time spent in walking anddelays. Data on labor utilization were then analyzed in conjunctionwith information on kitchen layout, equipment inventory, andmanagement practices..A case study was prepared on each of the sixschools, and conclusions regarding potential improvements in each ofthe operations were discussed with local school officials.(Author /MLF)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

U S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION A WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATIONM THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO

DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMC) THE PERSIN OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-r\J IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-r-1CATION POSITION OR POLICY.N

C)C3w Layout, Equipment, and Work Methods

for School Lunch Kitchens

and Serving Lines

Marketing Research Report No. 753

Agricultural Research Service

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

PREFACE

Material presented in this report was developed under contract byBattelle Memorial Institute. Mr. Wade D. Bash, Chief, School Lunch Pro-gram, Ohio State Departthent of Education, assisted in the selection ofschool lunch operations to be studied and counseled the contractor through-out the study. The Technical Services Branch, School Lunch Division, Con-sumer and Marketing Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),assisted in planning the study and reviewing the findings. Special creditis due officials of the following six Ohio schools who made available theircafeteria operations for detailed studies: Applewood Elementary School,Brunswick; Canton South High School, Canton; Madison Jr. and Sr. HighSchool, Trotwood; New Richmond Elementary School, New Richmond;Starr-Washington School, Union Furnace; and Troy High School, Troy.

CONTENTS

PagePagePreface '-

SummaryBackgroundObjectives and scopeMethodologyEstablishing Type A meal kitchen operations

Determining necessary size of operationsBasic space needsReceiving areaDry food storageSupply storage ,Walk-in refrigeratorWalk-in freezerKitchenServing areaDishwashing areaOffice spaceLocker and toilet areaLunchroom

General construction featuresWallsCeilingsFloorsDoors and windowsLighting, temperature control, and ventilationLayout conceptsFlow of workMaterials handlingEffort in relation to layout

Equipment selection

ii Storage areas121 Food preparation132

2Serving area

17Dishwashing area 193 Lunchroom193 Office and employee facilities 204 Location of equipment and layout of individual5 work stations205 Work centers215 Serving lines226 Dishwashing226 Observations in three sizes of school lunch kitchens 236 Characteristics of schools studied 246 Labor requirements in schools studied 24Total labor time 26Getting ready for meal preparation 26Preparation and cooking of food 27Serving of food28Cleanup activities 29Incidental activities29Effect of kitchen layout on labor time andeffort30on of findings in other schools 31

ApplicationOperating costs and cost control 32Types of records and cost control 329 Pertinent cost categories and income 319 Recommended facilities, layout, and equipment 359 Facilities and layout

3510 Equipment4010 Labor requirements in recommended kitchens 4210 Bibliography45

6777777779

Washington, D. C.Issued December 1966

i

Layout, Equipment, and Work Methodsfor School Lunch Kitchens and Serving Lines

By KONRAD BIEDERMANN, 0. WILIIELMY, JR., and M. B. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, andJonN C. BOUMA, Transportation and Facilities Research Division, Agricultural Research Service

SUMMARY

A study of six lunch operations in Ohio indi-cates that a thorough job -of planning. newkitchen facilities will pay off throughout thelife of the facility in terms of reduced laborrequirements. Best results are achieved inschools where the local administration drawsthe kitchen manager into the planning process,obtains new ideas from visits to new facilities,and formalizes requirements and plans in theform of tentative specifications. This procedurewill help the food service consultant and archi-tect in their detailed planning. Final plansshould be reviewed by local school officials aswell as kitchen management before being ap-proved. In many States, the plans also can besubmitted to the State department of educationfor review and recommendations by the SchoolLunch Director.

With present trends in school enrollment,facilities must be planned for growth. Incorpo-rating a 50-percent growth potential in outputinto new facilities is feasible, if enough spaceis allotted. Economies of scale will permit a siz-able increase in output in the kitchen if addi-tional equipment can be added as needed, and ifadequate aisle space is provided. Larger kitchenfacilities will require less floorspace per mealthan small-scale operations.

In developing the layout, including storageareas, food preparation, and serving area, plan-ners should provide a straight-line flow of thefood, with a minimum of back-tracking. Withinthe kitchen, work stations should be set up ona functional basis, with similar equipment beinggrouped together in central locations.

Selection of equipment should take into con-sideration its conformance to present and ex-pected methods of operation, the extent to whichit permits adherence to applicable principles ofmotion economy, and its speed of output. Capac-ity: durability, quality of construction, and priceare other major factors that must be weighedwhen comparing one make of equipment withanother.

When planning the location of equipment in

the kitchen, planners should consider the equip-ment's accessibility from individual work sta-tions and the total walking distance. Providingadequate aisle space for the free flow of trafficand .use of-mobile equipment should be given ahigh priority. It was determined in this studythat no more than Vi of the total fioorspace inschool kitchens should be covered by equipment,with % of the total area devoted to space aroundequipment and traffic lanes.

Work specialization among kitchen workerswas found to contribute to efficiency. Use ofpart-time workers during the peak hours oflabor demand also reduces total man-hours oflabor required when compared with a full-timestaff sufficient to satisfy peak labor demands.

Average labor requirements for the prepara-tion of Type A meals were found to range from4.7 to nearly 7 man-minutes per meal. This in-cludes the labor time of all people contributingto the production of meals, and represents anaverage output of from 9 to 13 meals per man-hour. An analysis of the variation in labor re-quirements relative to size of operations, layoutof physical facilities, availability of equipment,management, and work methods indicated thatall these factors influence labor requirements.

In the schools studied, getting ready for mealpreparation required 7 percent of total labortime. This requirement is influenced by physicallayout of facilities and size and location of stor-age areas. Food, preparation and cooking took26 percent of total labor time. Size of operationssignificantly influences per-meal labor require-ments in this category. Serving of food tookabout 23 percent of labor time.

Good layout of the dishwashing facility andspeed in the flow of operations help keep laborrequirements for cleaning low. Incidental activ-ities took 17 percent of total labor time. Most ofthis time is for administration and planning.A reduction of effort in this category is notlikely to lead to an overall lowering of laborrequirements.

1

2 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 753, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A breakdown of labor time of kitchen workersby activity showed that 65 to 75 percent of totallabor time is spent in actual work accomplish-ment. Between 15 and 25 percent of total timeis spent walking, 9 to 12 percent is consumedin delays, and 1 to 2 Percent goes for personalneeds and time unaccounted for.

Another major area affecting operational suc-cess in school kitchens is cost control. Cost ac-counting that concentrates on the recording andanalysis of current data and performance is mosthelpful in maintaining operational control. It en-

:ales managers to pinpoint causes of potentialtrouble and the extent of improvement that canbe expected from certain remedial actions.

Differences in local situations make it impos-sible to follow exactly any standard set of rec-ommendations in planning and operating localschool lunch programs. However, for demon-stration purposes, principles and experiences ofschools discussed in this report have been com-bined into a description of recommended facili-ties and labor utilization for three sizes of schoollunch operations.

BACKGROUNDSince 1946 the U. S. Department of Agricul-

ture, through the National School Lunch Pro-gram, has endeavored to provide a maximumnumber of children with nutritious schoollunches. During the school year 1963-64, 16 mil-lion school children consumed about 2.7 billionlunches, prepared in approximately 68,000 schoolkitchens throughout the United States. Therapid increase in numbers of school-age childrenexpected in future years will increase the num-ber of lunches.

With the continued growth of the schoollunch program the need for information to helpthe management of school lunch operations, inaddition to that published on the storage of

food and the planning and equipping of lunch-rooms, became apparent. This study was ini-tiated in 1963 in cooperation with the SchoolLunch Division, Consumer and Marketing Serv-ice, to develop standards of labor utilization andguides for planning or remodeling kitchens andlunchrooms in schools with kitchens on thepremises. With application of results in thisstudy, it will be possible for management toimprove the efficiency and reduce the effort re-quired to prepare and serve Type A lunches inexisting schools and to avoid many of the ineffi-ciencies caused by improper planning in newkitchens.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPEThe objectives of this study include the devel-

opment of (1) guides for planning of new schoolkitchens and lunchroom facilities and for majorremodeling of such facilities, and (2) standardsof labor utilization for three sizes of cafeterias.

When the data presented in this report arebeing applied to local conditions, the limitationsof the study should be taken into consideration.Observations of school lunch operations, onwhich the report is based, were limited to localkitchen operations, as opposed to central kitchenoperations. This means that equipment data andlabor requirements reported for various sizesof operations apply to situations in which mealsare prepared and consumed at the same loca-tion. However, principles governing kitchen lay-out and labor utilization will apply to centralkitchen operations in most instances.

Another factor to be considered in applyingthe research results is that all of the schoolsstudied served Type A meals primarily or ex-clusively. To quaky as a Type A lunch, a mealmust contain as a minimum the following: (1)One-half pint of fluid whole milk as a beverage.

(2) Two ounces (edible portion as served) oflean meat, poultry, or fish; or two ounces ofcheese; or one egg; or one-half cup of cookeddry beans or peas; or foul tablespoons of pea-nut butter; or an equivalent quantity of anycombination of the above-listed foods. To becounted in meeting this requirement, thesefoods must be served in a main dish or in a maindish and one other menu item. (3) A three-fourth cup serving consisting of two or morevegetables or fruits, or both. Full-strength veg-etable or fruit juice may be counted to meet nomore than one-fourth of this requirement. (4)One slice of whole-grain or enriched bread; or aserving of cornbread, biscuit, rolls, muffins, etc.,made of whole-grain or enriched meal or flour.(5) Two teaspoons of butter or fortified mar-garine.

This study centered on operations providingthe Type A meal program since it assures a nu-tritionally well-balanced meal. However, data inthis report can be used by a local school servinga limited number of food items on an a la cartebasis in addition to a Type A meal.

LAYOUT. EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 3

METHODOLOGYInformation obtained in this study came from

several sources. The greatest part of the datacame from more than 6 weeks of observationand measurement of operations in various schoolkitchens. Conferences with local school officialsand food service specialists provided additionalinformation, and this was supplemented by areview of the literature_and applicable industrialengineering principles.

The six schools chosen for direct observationare in Ohio. They represent a cross section ofelementary and high schools, rural and subur-ban communities, and small, medium, and largeschool lunch operations. Local school officialscooperated fully in making available all perti-nent information and permitting direct observa-tionS and measurement of physical operationsfor an entire week, dining which a standardizedmenu was served.

Labor utilization was measured by the worksampling technique (3).' In this study, 16 dif-ferent and clearly distinguishable tasks weredefined beforehand. The minimum number of

observations that will achieve a 90-percent ac-curacy in the time reading for a task that takes10 percent of total labor time was determinedto be 2,500. In the larger schools, this numberof observations was exceeded substantially. Intwo schools, an additional day of work samplingwas devoted to a separate study of the effect ofkitchen layout and equipment use upon actualworking time versus time spent in walking anddelays.

Data on labor utilization were then analyzedin conjunction with information on kitchen lay-out, equipment inventory, and managementpractices. A 30- to 40-page case study was pre-pared on each of the six schools, and conclusionsregarding potential improvements in each of theoperations were discussed with local school offi-cials. When the final report was drafted, infor-mation collected during the field work was com-bined with the results of a review of pertinentliterature and facility and equipment specifica-tions.

ESTABLISHING TYPE A MEAL KITCHEN OPERATIONSSchool lunch programs at the local level are

complex operations involving the highly special-ized functions of planning and preparing ofmeals, as well as the serving of food that willbroaden students' dietary interests. One of theessentials of a successful school lunch operationis adequate facilities. Since, once established,these facilities have a long-range influence uponthe physical efficiency, special attention must bepaid to their planning.

The subjects discussed in this section are in-dicative of the general areas to which attentionmust be given. Their diversity points to theneed for drawing into the planning sessions anumber of different talents. The school boardand administration are in the best position toassess needs of present and future sizes of feed-ing operations. They also are the ones mostaware of the overall requirements that must bemet during a construction or expansion programand the budgetary limitations. Lunchroom su-pervisory personnel and kitchen workers haveconsiderable experience that can be valuable intranslating the information provided by theschool administration into the necessary spaceand equipment requirements.

As a source of new ideas, inspection of school

' Italic numbers in parentheses refer to the Bibliog-raphy, p. 45.

lunch facilities recently constructed can be ofgreat help to lunchroom supervisors and schooladministrators. Such visits before or during theplanning of a new facility provide an opportun-ity to observe the new layout in oiieration, toexchange information, and to benefit from theexperience of the users. Another planning aidthat can be effectively used is a tentative out-line of the general floor plan, with movable tem-plates representing the individual pieces ofequipment that must be fitted into the layout:Although both the floor plan and the templatesshould be approximately to scale, these toolsneed consist of nothing more than paper cutoutsof the proper size (8). Some time and delibera-tion wall be needed to arrive at a satisfactoryarrangement.

The more local officials analyze needs andtranslate them into a list of objectives andmeans of achieving these objectives, the moreeffective will be the work of a food service con-sultant in developing more detailed plans andspecifications for the kitchen and allied servicearea. A consultant or architect will prepare ascale drawing or blueprint and a set of specifica-tions describing in detail the number, size, qual-ity, and other characteristics of the facility andequipment to be installed.

At this point, and before making final plans,architects and food service consultants usually

4 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 753, U.S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

will review the plans with all persons involved.Inclusion of the lunchroom supervisor and herassistants in this review session is important.Some time will have passed since these peoplewere asked to submit their initial suggestions,and they may have additional ideas that should.be incorporated into the final plans. Further-more, letting the future users of the facilitiesfamiliarize themselves with the plans at thisstage will make them feel that they have had apart in the planning. In the long run, this isbound to increase the overall effectiveness ofemployees and their alertness to opportunitiesfor improving work methods.

There are other aids available to local schoolofficials who are planning expansion or remodel-ing of physical facilities for the school lunchprogram (6. 8, and 9). Additional informationcan be found by tracing references quoted in re-ports, books, and articles. The school lunch divi-sion of the appropriate State department ofeducation has people available who, throughtheir basic training and constant contact withschool lunch operations throughout the State,have developed valuable knowledge and experi-ence. They are usually available to discuss pro-posed plans with local officials and will point outshortcomings and make constructive criticismsat a stage where revisionslawaill be incorpo-rated in the plan.

in two of the kitchen facilities studied, initialplanning involved what may have appeared atthe time a disproportionate amount of detail andeffort However, this joint effort of local schoolofficials, consultants, and architects resulted infacilities that, even after several years of use,have given rise to very few desires for changeson the part of kitchen personnel. Furthermore,even at a meal load of nearly twice that experi-enced at time of construction, the kitchens areoperating efficiently and show little evidence ofcrowding.

At the other extreme, in .two other kitchenfacilities studied, the operations evidently hadbeen fitted into whatever space was left afterall the needs of other departments had beenmet. This resulted in unsatisfactory arrange-ments in total space and layout and higher laborrequirements. In these kitchens, the burden ofachieving a satisfactory performance in dailyoperations has to be carried entirely by thekitchen personnel. However, good managementand the diligence of kitchen workers compen-sated for the unsatisfactory layouts.

The following detailed comments on planningsteps include some information provided in aprevious U. S. Department of Agriculture publi-cation (8). Some of the previously publishedinformation is included (1) to emphasize thatthese data, though originally developed in 1956,

were verified by the current study with a fewexceptions; (2) to extend some of the data toschool lunch operations serving more than 1,000meals per day ; and (3) to provide a properframework for the later discussion of the inter-action of facilities and labor efficiency.

Determining Necessary Sizeof Operations

When consideriug the number of meals akitchen facility will be expected to provide,planners should keep in mind the basic objec-tives of the school lunch program. The expressintent of the program is to provide studentswith nutritious and well-balanced meals and tomake lunch at school an educational experience.Therefore, physical efficiency and budgeting arenot the only factors to be considered.

One of the most widespread defects of schoollunch facilities is that they are too small for thenumber of students to be served. This stemsfrom budget limitations and too low an assess-ment of the growth trends in school enroll-ment, which led to construction of kitchen facil-ities that did not provide for growth.

Experience has shown that it is feasible, inspite of the usual budget limitations, to plankitchen and lunchroom facilities that could han-dle a 50-percent increase in the number of mealsserved. Thus, in communities where school en-rollment trends forecast a marked increase inthe use of facilities, planning should provide forexpected growth in the next 5 to 10 years.

Another factor influencing the size of facili-ties is the student participation in the lunchprogram. This is governed by the type of lunchprogram offered, the variety and appeal ofmenus served, alternative eating opportunitiesavailable to students, and practices in the sched-uling of lunch periods. In many schools, aver-age daily participation of students is less than50 percent of enrollment. In other schools withfavorable circumstances, as high as 90-percentparticipation has been attained.

There are other trends in public school admin-istration that will influence lunch program par-ticipation by pupils. Increasing pressure uponschool facilities requires closer scheduling in theuse of facilities and available teachers. Moreschools are likely to require students to remainat the school during the lunch period and morestaggered lunch periods are likely to be used.These developments will tend to channel uppergrade students who presently leave the schoolgrounds during the lunch period into the lunch-room serving lines. But it also will call for anincreased variety in menus and at least a limitedchoice among food items.

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 5

Other factors that will influence the size ofplanned operations relate to other uses to whichthe facilities are to be put. These other uses willaffect the size of the lunchroom more than thesize of the kitchen. Thus, a relatively smallschool with low student participation in thelunch program may have a large lunchroomwith adequate space for other school activities,such as use as a study hall.

In the kitchen, certain economies of scale helpprovide for a potential increase of 50 percent inthe meal load. As the number of meals servedincreases, the required kitchen area per mealcan be reduced up to a certain point withoutreducing efficiency. Adequate traffic aisles androom for the proper placement of a few piecesof additional equipment can suffice in planningfor a 50-percent increase in meals prepared.

Consideration of present and expected futureschool enrollment, student participation in thelunch program, and other uses of the facilitiesmust be translated into basic space needs.

Basic Space NeedsAdequacy of space will influence operating

costs of a school lunch facility as well as initialbuilding cost. When space is too small, labortime and effort will increase. On the other hand,when the facility is too large, walking distancesbetween work stations are unnecessarily long,and building and maintenance costs are exces-sive. With only a few exceptions, however, thetendency in the past has been to allow too littlerather than too much space.

Throughout the following discussion, fre------.quent reference is made to small, medium, and

'large school lunch operations. While these areflexible definitions, for the purpose of this re-port they refer to kitchens providing less than500 meals a day, between 700 and 1,000 mealsper day, and more than 1,400 meals a day, re-spectively.

Receiving Area

The receiving area for food and general sup-plies should include an outside loading platformeasily accessible to delivery trucks and an insidearea that permits checking incoming shipmentswithout interfering with normal operations.

The outside loading platform should be attruckbed height, and at the same level as thefloor of the receiving and storage areas. A truck-bed height dock may be achieved by lowering thedriveway, but proper draining should be pro-vided at the lowest point. The platform, or dock,should be at least 6 feet deep, and a roof shouldextend over the entire platform. The roof mustbe high enough for the door openings and for

the delivery trucks, which may be as much as13 feet.

Schools serving up to 500 lunches a day andreceiving frequent delivery. service may needonly a 6- by 10-foot outside platform. Schoolsfeeding more than 700 students may want spacefor delivery by two trucks at the same time;two trucks could be accommodated by a plat-form measuring approximately 8 by 20 feet.

Similar variation is found in the size of insidereceiving areas. In a small school, this roomshould be at least 50 square feet in size. In alarge school, it should be approximately 100square feet for rapid unloading. This space doesnot include room for a passageway, if the en-trance to the kitchen leads through the receiv-ing area. Furthermore, in a large school, pro,portionally less room will be required for hold-ing cartons and cans because these items arelikely to be picked up more frequently. If trashis not picked up daily, and if food waste ishauled away rather than run through garbagedisposers connected to the sewer system, extraspace totaling 50 square feet will be needed fora garbage can rack and can wash area. Thisshould be adjacent to the receiving room.

Of the six schools studied, only one had a sep-arate receiving room. The others used the rearhallways as temporary holding areas for incom-ing supplies, or moved the supplies directly intothe storage room. If the passageway from therear door to the kitchen was not blocked by theincoming supplies, this practice did not influencelabor requirements adversely, nor did it conflictwith recommended sanitary or safety practices.More extensive discussion on the receiving andstorage areas is provided in other USDA re-ports (8 and 9) .

Dry Food Storage

Under normal conditions, 0.5 square feet offloorspace per meal served daily has proved tobe adequate for orderly storage of food not re-quiring refrigeration. This figure is based uponapproximately 2 weeks' supply of staples; itpermits use of part of the area for storage ofpaper goods and other items riot conflicting withsanitation and safety practices governing thestorage of dry foods. This study, however, didnot include a specific investigation of the opti-mum level of supplies that should be carried byschools.

There is a tendency to underestimate the needfor storage space in school lunch operations. Forthis reason, it is emphasized that the space re-quirement of 0.5 square feet of floorspace permeal served daily for storage should be appliedto the average number of meals after allowingfor growth of school enrollment and meal par-

6 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 753,

ticipation. Adequate ventilation should be pro-vided in the dry food storage room.

Supply StorageA separate room for the storage of cleaning

supplies is required because these materials can-not be stored in the same room with food sup-plies. In small kitchen operations, this separateroom could be closet space in the receiving area.In this case the overall size of the receiving areamust be somewhat enlarged. For larger schoolsserving up to 2,000 meals per day, a separateroom providing 120 square feet should be suf-ficient. This room should have a sink with hotand cold water and adequate ventilation, thougha window may not be necessary. If space in thedry food storage area is limited, paper goodsmay be kept here also.

Walk-in RefrigeratorObservation of school lunch operations in

small schools indicates that a walk-in refrig-erator is very desirable. However, no effort wasmade to verify the exact size of operation wherecost of equipment and floorspace occupied byreach-in equipment would begin to exceed thecost of the smallest walk-in refrigerator thatcan be recommended.

Walk-in refrigerators with less than an 8- by10-foot inside dimension will not be large enoughfor workers to turn around when restackingshelves. Furthermore, units with a floor levelthat will not permit the wheeling of loaded cartsinto the unit will reduce the efficiency and useof refrigerated space. On the other hand, walk-in refrigerators with 150 square feet of usablespace, at the same floor level as the kitchen,were adequate for the needs of kitchens servingfrom 1,400 to 2,000 meals a day.

Walk-in Freezer

Proper size of walk-in frozen food storage de-pends upon the location of the school, food pur-chasing practices, and frequency of deliveries.For these reasons, it is difficult to give an accu-rate indication of size of operation beyondwhich reach-in freezers should be replaced orsupplemented by walk-in space. The minimumpractical size of walk-in freezers is approxi-mately 8 by 10 feet.

In the schools studied, use of commercialfreezer space away from the school was not con-sidered a good solution to the problem of pro-viding additional space. Furthermore, provisionof freezer space on the basis of average need is

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

inadequate, because USDA-donated frozen meatand poultry must be accepted at the times andin volumes allocated. A large school lunch opera-tion might find a walk-in freezer providing 100square feet of floorspace adequate.

Kitchen

The floorspace needed for preparation andcooking of food is more subject to reduction insquare footage required per meal than otherareas. In small operations serving up to 200meals a day, the 2 to 2.5 square feet of kitchenfloor . area per meal served daily, as recom-mended in earlier publications, is definitely nec-essary to provide adequate working space (8).Yet, with 350 to 500 meals a day, 1.5 squarefeet per meal served daily was found to be suf-ficient. For more than 1,000 meals, one squarefoot can prove quite adequate, and for as manyas 2,000 meals per day, 0.8 square foot of floor-space per meal served daily will still permit alayout that allows the free flow of traffic.

This is not meant to imply that kitchens builtduring the last few years are too large, becausethe contrary appears to be true. Of the sixschools studied, only two came close to theabove recommended standards. The others werecrowded for space.

Serving Area

The amount of floorspace that must be al-lotted to the serving area depends primarilyupon the number of serving lines installed; thisin turn depends upon the length of the noonhour and the schedule for releasing individualgrades for lunch. A straight-line serving coun-ter incorporating separate sections for hot andcold food, milk, tableware, and the cashier willextend from 20 to 25 feet. To provide adequateaisle space for students and servers, 200 to 250square feet of floorspace is required. An L-shaped arrangement of the serving line takesslightly more floorspace.

Serving speeds observed ranged up to 8 stu-dents per minute during periods when therewere no breaks in the line. However, the aver-age speed, with serving lines remaining openfor 1 hour and 40 minutes, was approximately 5students per minute per serving line. At thisrate, one line can be expected to serve up to 500students in 1 hour and 40 minutes. Only ex-tremely close scheduling, staggered release ofindividual grades, and an extension .of the totallunch period beyond 2 hours would permit serv-ing as many as 700 students per serving line,as was observed in one school.

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS

Dishwashing Area

Orderly arrangement of a small dishwashinglayout with a tank-type automatic dishwasherwill require approximately 150 square feet. Thiswill be adequate for kitchens serving as manyas 500 meals per day. At the other end of thescale, a much higher capacity automatic dish-washer will require from 250 to 300 square feetof floorspace and can handle as many as 2,000meals per day.

Office Space

At least 60 square feet is needed to providesuitable office space for the head cook or thelunchroom supervisor. If the jobs of the headcook and lunchroom supervisor are filled by dif-ferent persons, office space for both should beprovided. This will require 120 square feet.

Locker and Toilet AreaLocker room space of approximately 3.5

square feet of floor area should be provided foreach employee. Together with a toilet facility,this will require a room with about 60 squarefeet for a lunchroom serving 300 to 500 stu-dents. In a kitchen serving 1,400 meals per day,160 square feet is adequate for the same typeof facilities.

LunchroomIn general, most school lunchrooms allow 10

to 12 square feet of floor area per person seatedat one time. In elementary schools, 9 square feetper person is adequate. Most schools extendtheir lunch periods so they can accommodate atleast two seatings daily. The number of seatsneeded would be approximately one-half theLumber of meals served daily. Close schedulingcan permit as many as four seatings daily, butachievement of this depends upon optimum per-formance in the kitchen and extremely closescheduling of individual grades as they movethrough the serving line.

These guidelines to basic space requirementsfor school lunch facilities were not developed byany scientific estimating technique, but ratherby observation of actual operations covering awide variety of situations. They are intendedas an initial planning guide. Since some of thespace requirements are subject to State andlocal regulations, such regulations must betaken into account before the plans are com-pleted. Architects and consultants are familiarwith such regulations and can also draw uponexperience accumulated under comparable con-ditions.

7

Figure 1 shows approximate space require-ments for the major areas for various sizes ofschool lunch facilities. Lunchroom space re-quirements are not shown in figure 1 becausesuch space depends upon the number of seat-ings per day and alternative uses for ti.e room.

General Construction FeaturesFinal specifications of materials for the facil-

ities are made by the architect. Exterior fea-tures of construction will be governed largelyby the style and architecture of the entire build-ing; they are beyond the realm of this report.

Interior features, especially the selection ofmaterials, should be viewed in terms of func-tionality and durability of materials, sanitationand ease of cleaning, and cheerfulness of theresulting atmosphere.

Walls

Walls should be smooth, impervious to mois-ture, and easy to wash and keep in good repair.For these reasons, glazed tile is widely used.Painted plaster or masonry is acceptable. forareas not subject to splashing and daily wash-ing, such as storage room, office, and lockerroom walls, and certain parts of the kitchenwalls above a height of 6 to 7 feet. Plasterboardor wood is not desirable because it is not vermin-proof. Covered bases at the floor line are neces-sary for easy cleaning, and coved vertical cor-ners may be required by local regulations. Metalcorner guards, preferably stainless steel, shouldbe installed on all projecting corners subject totraffic damage. Light colors are preferred forwalls and ceilings.

Ceilings

In the kitchen, ceilings should be smooth, im-pervious to moisture, and easy to clean and re-pair. Nonabsorbent, rodentproof, fire-resistant,acoustical-type ceilings are desirable. A mechan-ical suspension system for such ceilings is lessaffected by steam and heat than adhesive at-tachment of acoustical materials. Painted,waterproof, mildew-resistant plaster or cementis performing satisfactorily in some schoolswith good ventilation and exhaust systems.

Floors

Nonresilient flooring, such as ceramic tile,terrazzo, quarry tile, or slip-resistant treatedconcrete, are more durable than resilient typesof flooring. However, if used in work centers ofthe kitchen, they require the use of synthetic

A,ifif

,11111,

if

..4.1./111

11110

'A1111111111

'111111..

if

'1111111o_111111111116'111111111111E.

if

,,

'111111111E

4.'Illisillossmilloursgemsliesoli.

III

.....

, 4,if

/,

0111111111111111111'81111811111111111111'111111111111111111111E.

I11111.

11111111111111111111111.

if

4%

'11111111111111111111111111.1111111111111111111111111111:

"4011111111

1111111)

'111111111111111111111111.

if

1111111111111111111111111,11111

OF

/..

1111111111111111111111111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111

.

'111111111111111111111111111111116::.

/

11111111111111111111111111/1111,

../

'11111111111111111111111011,

.

OF

'1111111111111111111111'

if

//

'111111111111111111''11E11111111111''111111111E'

4%

111/11'

.e

If'

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 9rubber or vinyl mats to reduce worker fatigue.Resilient flooring must be slip-resistant, grease-,acid-, and alkali-resistant, and easy to keepclean. Vinyl-asbestos, greaseproof asphalt, andrubber tile are some of the types that haveproved satisfactory.

Recessed floor drains away from work areasare desirable in the kitchen, serving, dishwash-ing, and receiving areas. If used in dry foodstorage areas, they must be constructed so thatno vermin or rodents can enter the area throughthem. Floor areas under steamers, kettles, andcan-washing equipment should be surroundedby curbs or gutters and drained independentlyof other floor areas.

Doors and Windows

Outside doors should have self-closing devicesand locks. Inside doors should have locks andshould provide a sound-dampening effect. Doorsleading from refrigerated or other self-containedrooms should have locks that can be openedfrom the inside. Metal door frames are desirableto minimize damage from daily traffic.

Windows should provide ventilation withoutcausing undesirable drafts. They also should behigh enough (4 $-inch sill height) to permitalignment of equipment along outside walls.Some kitchens have been constructed with onlya skylight or with no windows at all. If propermechanical ventilation is provided, many work-ers will get accustomed to the situation. Otherworkers will feel unhappy in a room withoutwindows. From a strictly functional viewpoint,there are no basic objections to a kitchen in thecenter of a building, without windows.

Lighting, Temperature Control,and Ventilation

Detailed standards have been developed onacceptable levels of lighting, temperature con-trol, and ventilation in kitchens. Architects arefamiliar with them as well as with local regula-tions, and are often in the best position to pre-scribe the proper features of construction andequipment.

Experience has shown that the mechanicalventilation system of the kitchen should be sep-arated from that for the rest of the school. Thekitchen and service areas can be heated by theschool heating system but must have a separatetemperature control. Dry food storage roomsshould be vented toward the outside of thebuilding both at a high and low point.

Lighting and wiring must comply with theNational Electric Code and local requirements.

Light fixtures should be so placed that em-ployees will not work in their own shadow andwill not be inconvenienced by glare. Provisionsshould be made in the initial construction plansfor special wiring and outlets for heavy-dutyequipment. Spare circuits should be incorporatedfor future needs. Although there should be easyaccess to critical points in utility lines, exposedconduits, pipes, and other surfaces difficult tokeep clean should be avoided.

Layout ConceptsIn most schools, the pattern of the entire

building will determine the general location ofthe kitchen and lunchroom facility. Beyond that,the facility should be arranged for efficiency ofoperation. Industrial engineering techniquesused in this study included time studies, obser-vation of equipment use, attention to principlesof motion economy, and observation of the ef-fect of working conditions upon worker fatigue.The results indicated the importance of study-ing the functionality of the general layout of akitchen facility before construction.

Flow of Work

The term "layout" in this discussion refers tothe relation of the general work areas to eachother. The overall flow of work should bestraight line as used in assembly-line produc-tion, with storage at the beginning or end, andwith delays kept to a minimum. Straight linein this sense means that the flow of materialbeing processed is continuous or direct in prog-ress. In actuality, the layout may be circular,U-shaped, or L-shaped or in parallel lines.

Local school officials may draw a diagramshowing the overall flow of supplies and prod-ucts from one area to the next with arrows toindicate the direction of flow. Later, the flowmay be imposed upon a copy of the blueprintsupplied by the architect. The arrows may bedifferent colors to indicate specific operations,such as green for raw materials, red for pre-pared foods, and blue for dishes. The diagramwill show whether relocation of a certain sec-tion is needed.

Figure 2 shows a diagram of a desirable rela-tionship among the major service centers. Insmall and medium-size kitchen operations,where rectangular space with length not morethan about twice the width is available, it isusually possible to come close to an ideal ar-rangement of the major work centers. In largeroperations, serving up to 2,000 meals per day,distances become more critical because of thesize of the operation, and certain compromises


DRY FOODSTORAGE

SERVING AREA

RECEIVING

PRELIMINARYPREPARATION

FINAL FOODPREPARATION

DINING AREA

"EEP. 'PRATED..7.0RAGE

DISHWASHING ANDMAINTENANCE AREAS

FIGURE 2.Desirable location of major service centers in relation to each other (8).

may be necessary. Compromises- made dependupon the frequency of use of the specific area,and the amount and bulkiness of items thatmust be transported. Thus, it usually is betterto locate the supply storage ar .naintenanceareas farther from the direct fine of flow thanthe dry food storage or the refrigerated areas.

In this study, managers pointed out that morethan one outside door for deliveries often leadsto confusion and therefore is not as desirableas a well-planned layout with one delivery doorfor all types of foods and supplies.

Materials Handling

The time and effort that must be expended inhandling food and supplies as they movethrough the facility is influenced by the over-all layout.

The handling of foods and supplies by aworker at one work station is influenced bymethods of operation and can be adjusted tosome extent after the kitchen is in operation.Materials handling that deals with the flow offood and supplies among areas is more difficultto adjust after the kitchen is in operation. Ifaisles and doors are not wide enough and thetraffic pattern crisscrosses, even the use of themost functional dollies, carts, and handtruckswill not alleviate the basic problem. However, ifsize and layout of physical facilities is wellplanned, aids in transporting heavy or bulky.items (including small worktables and equip-ment stands with lockable casters) can keep thematerials-handling problem manageable. This isespecially important in school kitchens, sincethe work is usually done by women, and menmay not be available for assistance in heavylifting.

E f fort in Relation to Layout

One measure of the effort of kitchen workersthat can be used to assess the relative effect oflayout on labor time is the percent of total work-ing. time spent walking. This is significantlyaffected by the size of the facility and the de-gree of specialization of kitchen workers. How-ever, even with aisles of adequate width, withcooks specializing in the preparation of differentcategories of food, and with all service areaswithin the same rectangular complex, cooks stillmust be expected to spend approximately 15percent of their working time walking from onearea and work station to another.

Actual measurement in two large kitchens in-dicated that this percentage can be as high forkitchens with narrow aisles and more remotestorage areas as for very spacious kitchens inwhich the flow of product involves significantbacktracking. From data obtained during thisstudy, there probably are many school kitchenlayouts where up to 25 percent of total workingtime is spent in walking, which in turn increasestotal labor time for the preparation of meals.

Equipment SelectionThe following are the foremost considerations

in the selection of equipment for school lunchoperations: (1) Does the equipment fit presentand expected methods of operations? (2) Doesit permit adherence to applicable principles ofmotion economy? (3) Does it permit speedy out-put? (4) Will the increasing cost of kitchenlabor make the use of convenience foods moreattractive in the future, and thus eliminate theneed for some equipment?

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 11Method - f operation can vary considerably

among , , , :;tchens serving meals meetingType J. - Acations. Thus, a school systemoffering licit plate lunches to students will selectdifferent types of equipment than those servingonly bag lunches. Within the group serving hotmeals, for example, an examination of reasonsoffered for the increased use of steam cookingequipment might lead to a change in cookingmethods. Decisions of this type are o: a long-range nature, and a good time to consider fu-ture applicability of present methods is whennew facilities are being constructed and newequipment selected.

Another point on which technical data on newequipment alone cannot shed sufficient light is"How easy is the equipment to operate?" Thiswill depend upon such factors as these: Areworking surfaces adjustable to the properheights for various sizes of people? Are con-trols and, switches within easy reach? Can mo-mentum be used to advantage during the opera-tion, or is it reduced to a minimum at stageswhere it must be overcome by muscular effort?Can both hands be used simultaneously? Manyof these questions can be answered only afteractual use of equipment. This is another reasonfor visits by lunchroom personnel to other schoolkitchen facilities that use the equipment con-templated.

With emphasis on fuller utilization of physi-cal facilities, speed of operation and quantity ofoutput of equipment deserve special attention.The trend toward school consolidation has de-creased the number of school lunch operationsserving less than 300 students. In larger opera-tions, the use of more specialized equipment isjustified. This equipment is usually capable ofturning out more product in less time withlower labor requirements than multiple-purposeequipment. A case in point is the use of deckovens in place of ovens incorporated into rangeunits.

Rising labor costs will have a dual effect uponequipment requirements. On one hand, mecha-nization of tasks will become even more desir-able and call for additional equipment. On theother hand, a continued increase in the cost oflabor for local preparation of foods will speedthe development of more convenience foods thatcould lower both labor requirements and equip-ment needed in school kitchens. For example,under some circumstances it may be more de-sirable to use powdered potatoes than to buy apotato peeler and use kitchen labor to preparethe potatoes. In each case, the costs involvedmust be carefully weighed.

Other considerations in equipment relate tothe materials used in construction of the equip-ment, technical design features that promise

low upkeep, quality in construction, safety andsanitation aspects in operating the equipment,and cost of operation. Within the cost rangescommonly encountered in first and installed costof comparable equipment, any or all of the con-siderations can alter which make and modelshould be considered. What looks like a bargainprice may turn out to be less attractive afterlong-run aspects are taken into consideration,and a more expensive piece of equipment fea-turing functionality, quality, and low cost ofoperation may be the best buy.

Internal conditions also play an important rolein the selection of equipment. One of these isthe availability of utilities and services. In areasnot serviced by public gas, water, and sewersystems, certain types of equipment may be outof the question. and operating requirements ofsuch equipment (for example, water require-ments) will need much Moser scrutiny than inother schools.

There is such a variety of equipment on themarket that a fair rating of each on all impor-tant counts would require a tremendous amountof study. Furthermore, technical advanceswould require a constant updating of this infor-mation. There are, however, impartial guide-lines that can aid local school officials in theselection of kitchen equipment. One such guide-line is the standards established and publishedby the National Sanitation Foundation, a non-profit, noncommercial organization composed ofindustrial and public health leaders.

This organization is seeking solutions to allproblems involving cleanliness. A piece of equip-ment that meets these standards will probablypermit sanitation commensurate with the bestknowledge available at the time. Other aids inthe selection of equipment are the experienceand professional knowledge of food service con-sultants, and the reputation developed by themanufacturing firms.

Since differences in local conditions make dis-cussion of the relative merit of specific piecesof equipment of limited value, the following dis-cussion of equipment commonly used in a schoollunch operation has been kept in general terms.Comments are based on a study of functionalityof given features of equipment and observationof the equipment in use. The findings in thisstudy are essentially in accord with the moredetailed comments on this subject in an earlierUSDA publication (8).

Observation in the six schools indicated thatthe equipment available was one of the mostimportant factors in determining work methods,which in turn influenced efficiency. Some man-agers showed considerable ingenuity in makingtheir equipment do more in terms of quantityand type of output than it was originally de-


signed for. On the other hand, it was evidentthat the impulse for any change to a new typeof equipment would have to come from the out-side. This again points up the value of informa-tional trips to newly constructed school kitchensin the area. Limiting oneself to past experiencein the selection of new equipment and printedor hearsay information is not likely to lead tosatisfactory results in the long run.

Storage Areas

The major requirement for the receiving areais that it provide adequate floorspace for hold-ing incoming or outgoing items. A clipboard andplatform scales for checking in supplies andhand or platform trucks for transporting goodsshould be available. The scale should be a port-able floor model with a capacity of 400 pounds,and preferably 1/2-pound graduations. Case goodslikely will be counted only and moved into thefood storage area. However, fresh produce andother items received in variable weight unitsneed to be weighed. Furthermore, cooks maywish to use the scales when checking out bulksupplies from the storeroom. On the other hand,in many operations, personnel are so familiarwith quantities received and used that they pre-fer to rely on visual inspection.

Platform trucks in the receiving area shouldbe of the heavy-duty type, with a metal frameand platform, rubber-tired, ball-bearing wheelsof which two are swiveled, and a handle on theswivel end. Light handtrucks found as standardequipment in most kitchens are not adequate,since they are usually not built for the type ofloads handled in the receiving area. Handtrucksfor transport of goods in smaller quantitiesfrom the storage area to the kitchen can be thesame as generally used in the kitchen. However,in that case, the heavier models are preferable,since it is difficult to exercise control in dailyoperations over which handtrucks are used forspecific types of loads.

Shelving in the storeroom can be of wood ormetal. It should be supported by uprights notmore than 48 inches apart. Practical height forthe upper shelf is approximately 7 feet. Lowershelves should be adjustable in heights, and thelowest shelf should be 36 inches from the floorto permit storage of bulk items on platformsbelow. Shelves should be securely braced againsttipping and provide a minimum of 1-inch clear-ance from the wall for cleaning and air circula-tion.

Shelving is available in 12-, 18-, and 24-inchdepths'. The 18-inch depth appears to offer max-imum usable space and permit easy control formost items if access is from one side only. (The


12- and 24-inch depths are better for small andlarge items, respectively). Where access wasfrom two sides, two 18-inch shelves placed backto back were used to advantage in the schoolsobserved. Clearance between the shelves shouldbe at least 15 inches to accommodate stackingNos. 2, 21/2, 3, and 10 cans.

Aisle space in the storeroom for minimumaccess to shelving only should be 30 inches. Formovement of portable platforms and handtrucksbetween rows of shelves, at least 42 inches ofaisle space is needed. Figure 3 shows a dry foodstorage room, used at one of the schools, thatlacked sufficient space below the shelves forstorage of large items.

Containers for bulk storage of food items canbe as large as 200-pound capacity, if they areequipped with casters or located permanently ondollies (9). Aluminum or stainless steel are pre-ferred for such containers, and constructionwith coved corners is desirable for easier clean-ing. The bulk containers should be clearly

B14 27315

FIGURE 3.A dry food storage room used at oneof the schools studied.

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS Mt SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS

marked as to contents, and each one should con-tain a separate scoop of corrosion-resistant ma-terial or other device to portion out the con-tents. To permit closer control of temperaturein the dry food storage area, a thermometershould be placed where it can readily be ob-served. Direct entry and exit ventilation to theoutside should be provided in the dry food store-room. The storeroom need be heated only toprevent freezing of canned and bottled foods.

In the storage area for cleaning supplies,shelving of similar construction and dimensionsas discussed previously is desirable. In addition,a metal or wood cabinet with hinged doors anda lock will be needed, to keep potentially harm-ful concentrations of cleaning agents from un-authorized use. Proper ventilation should beprovided in this room. When it is used to storemops and other cleaning tools, a rack will beneeded for their orderly storage. Hot and coldwater should be available.

The refrigerated storage will require shelvingthat should be portable for easier cleaning andadjustable to varying storage requirements.Wooden shelves should not be used, becausethey are subject to mold growth. Stainless steelof the proper grade and type is necessary toassure that shelving will be sufficiently sturdyand will not corrode. A remote-reading type ofthermometer and outside light switch with indi-cator light are necessary for proper control oftemperature and light in the freezer and refrig-eration section. Door construction is especiallycritical, since easy operation and proper insula-tion must be guaranteed. Figure 4 shows thefunctional arrangement of access to the refrig-erated storage areas in one of the schoolsstudied.

The overall specifications governing the con-struction of refrigerated areas and refrigerationequipment are highly technical. Only a personwith the proper training can make the properrecommendations, which then should be ex-pressed in detailed technical specifications.

Food PreparationThis discussion is divided into sections on the

selection of cooking equipment, mechanicalequipment, and other fixed and portable equip-ment. It points out the major features of equip-ment that will determine satisfactory operation,as well as labor requirements and effort in theoverall operation of the facility.

Cooking Equipment Ranges are the tradi-tional heart of the cooking center. They come insections 30 to 36 inches wide, with a cookingsurface of 5 to 6 square feet per unit. Heavy-duty solid tops permit fuller utilization thanopen burner tops. Use of the solid tops as grills

13

DN-273I5FIGURE 4.Access to refrigerated storage areas, fea-

turing outside temperature and light indicators andwell-insulated doors shielded against traffic damage.

is possible on some models. Schools visited pre-ferred ranges with ovens below rather thanstorage shelves. Even though these ovens arenot as convenient as deck ovens, they representoverflow area when regular deck oven space isbeing used to capacity.

The cooking surface for ranges mounted onlegs or masonry bases was found to be from 34to 36 inches high. With a 36-inch height, smallpersons using stock pots with 10-inch walls hadto use a small stepping stool to maintain a com-fortable position while stirring food. This is nota Satisfactory arrangement. Back shelves onranges are convenient for temporary holding ofingredients or food, but they do not serve wellto hold full pans of food since they are likely tobe too high for safe lifting of hot pots and pans.For reasons enumerated in the discussion ofsteam cooking equipment, larger schools areturning more to steam cooking equipment. Thelargest school studied, feeding close to 2,000siudents, had only two range units, whichproved quite adequate since nearly all food wascooked in the higher capacity steam equipment.Management reported that one range top wouldhave been sufficient.

Deep fryers are not a regular part of equip-ment needed for Type A meal preparation. How-ever, they can be used to widen the variety of


food offered. They come in three basic sizes,with a fat capacity of from 10 to 15 pounds, 30to 40 pounds, and 45 to 60 pounds. Their outputof product per hour should be 11/2 to 2 times theweight of fat. Operational techniques, such asblanching potatoes befcr.e frying them and par-tially cooking chickens or other items, will in-crease productive capacity of other equipment,and these factors must be evaluated in selectingthe proper size. Range, grill, and deep-fryingequipment used in an operation providing up to2,000 meals per day are shown in figure 5.

Ovens are available in single or multiple-decktypes, with fixed or adjustable shelves. Auto-matic temperature control at each deck is de-sirable. Ovens should permit easy and thoroughcleaning. Decks of ceramic material should benonabsorbent and hard enough so they will notbe injured in cleaning. In one of the schoolsstudied, considerable extra time was expendedafter each use to keep an oven with a corrosion-prore inner lining in satisfactory condition.

.though roasting decks in stack ovens canbe adapted for baking by the use of shelves, thetrend in larger schools appears to be toward theuse of convection-current baking ovens withadjustable shelving that permits better utiliza-tion of oven space (fig. 6). Glass doors andinside lights can save considerable labor timeand result in a better oven performance becausethere is less need to open the doors to check theprogress of the baking or roasting process.

Thickness of insulation, heat loss, B.t.u. inputper hour, and type and strength of materialsused in construction of ovens should be dis-

IIN27317FIGURE 5.Range, grill, and deep-frying equipment

used in a school lunch operation providing up to2,000 meals a day (major reliance upon steam cook-ing equipment).

BN17309FIGURE 6.High-capacity, convection- current

baking oven.

cussed with persons familiar with technical as-pects, since these data can offer important indi-cations of performance.

The choice of gas or electricity as a fuel forcooking equipment is largely one of local avail-ability and preference. No generalization can bemade about the most desirable choice. In thedifferent schools studied, both types were usedunder very similar conditions, and personnelwere equally well satisfied with the performanceof both.

In selecting steam equipment for cooking, thesource and character of the steam must be con-sidered. Direct connection to the boiler supply-ing heat for the school is satisfactory only if aconstant pressure is available during the entireschool year. Needs of individual pieces of steamcooking equipment varies from 5 to 15 poundsper square inch of minimum pressure.

Use of compartment steamers for cooking hasseveral advantages. Compared with range-topcooking, cooking time is reduced and capacityper square foot of cooking space is increased.Food does not need to be stirred during cooking,as in stock pots on the range top, and it can beserved from the containers used for cooking.Consequently, appearance of the product is im-proved and energy required by cooks is reduced.On the other hand, some lunchroom supervisorswith considerable experience insist that it ismore difficult to maintain flavor of various foodsduring steam cooking, and they prefer to userange-top cooking.


Compartment steamers observed in schoolkitchens accommodated two to three regularsteam table pans (12 by 20 inches) per deck andhad no more than three compartments. Multi-ple units of this type were preferred to thelarger commercial types of steam ovens, mainlyfor flexibility reasons (fig. 7). Compartmentsteamers of either stainless steel or galvanizedsteel have proven functionally satisfactory inschool kitchens. Safety valves, air vents, safetylocks on doors, and timer units are importantfeatures to examine in the selection process. Anautomatic timer is a desirable optional feature.Perforated and solid stainless steel baskets forcooking are available. The schools observed allused the regular steam table pans for cookingand thus had less pot handling and cleaning timethan operations relying entirely on range-topcooking.

Steam-jacketed kettles were used extensivelyin the larger schools. The kettles observed weredeep, two-thirds jacketed, and stationary, andthey were equipped with a drawoff faucet.Stainless steel is the preferred material. Asafety valve and pressure gage should be part ofall steam equipment. Kettles with self-gen-erated steam should have an automatic low-water cutout and a thermostatically controlledheat cutout.

Some schools use kettles with a capacity upto 100 gallons. For certain foods not subject

BN-27320FIGURE 7.Compartment steamers and

steam-jacketed kettle.

to crushing by mass movement, and if a manis available to assist in stirring, this may besatisfactory. Ordinarily, however, .10- to 60-gal-lon kettles should be considered the maximumsize for the preparation of foods requiring stirring. The shallow, full-jacketed kettle with lesscapacity and tilting mechanism may be easierfor women cooks to handle.

When steam kettles are being installed it isimportant to provide connections with hot andcold water and a swivel faucet for ease of fill-ing and cleaning the kettles. Drawoff faucetson stationary kettles are of maximum valueonly if they are tangent to the bottom of thekettles, permit easy cleaning, and are protectedfrom bumping by handtrucks. Suitable floordrainage in this area is important to preventhazardous slipping on slick floors. The heightof the rim of the kettles as installed will varysomewhat, depending upon the depth of thekettles, but a good average height is 36 inches.The rim should be reinforced to withstand wear.Covers of large kettles should be hinged, bal-anced to stand open without tipping, and easilyremovable.

A hood or canopy with filters and exhaustfans is needed over all cooking and bakingequipment to draw off heat, steam, and cook-ing odors and to remove grease from the air.Best clearance of the canopy is from 5 to 61/afeet above the equipment, and about 2 inchesof overhang for each foot above the equipmentis needed to assure proper operation. Canopyhoods should have smooth surfaces free ofcrevices, trim, or other projections. Metal andmasonry finishes have proven satisfactory.Sealed-in vaporproof lights should be installedas required for proper illumination of workareas. Switches for lights and fans should beaway from the immediate cooking area.

Mechanical Equipment.In smaller schools,reach-in refrigerators may meet the need forrefrigerated storage space. But even in largerschools with an adequate walk-in refrigerator,the use of reach-in units closer to the workstations and the serving line is indicated. Insti-tutional refrigerators are available with hingedor sliding doors, verminproof insulation, rot,proof gaskets, and plated or stainless steelhardware. Porcelain enamel exteriors may bemore subject to damage from bumping, butstainless steel exteriors will show fingerprintsmore easily. Doors on both sides of the re-frigerator may be desirable if it is located be-hind serving lines or between two work sta-tions.

Sinks should be provided at three locations.A small sink approximately 15 by 15 by 8 to 12inches installed in the cook's table near theranges is desirable. There should be a vegetable


preparation sink with two or more compart-ments of approximately 20 by 20 by 12 to 14inches inside measurements. (A mechanicalwaste disposer should be installed in one of thesink compartments, if water and sewer condi-tions permit. Drainboards at least 24 inches inlength, draining into the sink at a height of34 to 36 inches from the floor, make work nextto the sink possible.) A two- or three-compart-ment pot sink also is needed. Compartments inthis sink should be at least 24 by 24 inches in-side measurement, with a depth of 12 to 16inches. The bottom of this sink should be atleast 24 inches above the floor, with the frontrim 36 to 40 inches above the floor. Observa-tions indicated that where these measurementswere reduced substantially, undesirable work-ing conditions resulted. Apart from the utilitysinks, a hand lavatory should be part of everykitchen operation. A standard-size sink, witha mixing faucet and soap and towel dispenser,will be sufficient.

Vegetable peelers vary in size from 15 toover 50 pounds capacity. In smaller schoolswhere sink area is limited, the portable typemay be moved away from the sink when notin use so that the sink may be used more con-veniently for other purposes. In larger schools,a stationary installation adjacent to a sink ispreferred. Models with 30-pound capacity usual-ly will be large enough for school lunch opera-tions, since eying of potatoes, rather than peel-ing, generally limits overall speed. It is desirablethat peelers be equipped with automatic timersand a peel trap or integral waste disposer. Ifinstallation is permanent, the peeler must behigh enough to discharge properly onto a drain-board or into a sink. Figure 8 shows a goodpeeler and sink arrangement in one of theschools studied. although in a different kitchenlayout it may be desirable to locate the saladand pot sinks farther apart.

Food mixers used in school lunch operationsvary in size from 20-quart bench models to 60-quart floor models. Since continued maximumuse of the smaller models can easily lead tosplashing and overworking of the motor, lunch-room supervisors point out that larger models(30 and 60 quart) are only moderately higherin first cost, have a stronger motor, and canstill be used to advantage for the smaller taskswith the aid of adapter bowls. Larger models canbe as versatile as the smaller ones, if they areprovided with vegetable slicer, dicer, or meatand food chopper attachments. A bowl dollywill be required for the 60-quart size.

Separate food cutters are justified, since theyperform a somewhat different task, and assurethat the mixers will remain fully available fortheir primary purpose. An electric table model

13N27321FIGURE 8. Satisfactory arrangement of vegetable

peeler, salad sink, and pot sink, with adequatedrainboard space.

slicer with gravity or mechanical feed is neededin any size of school lunch operation. It shouldhave a 10- to 12-inch knife, and an angle feedpermitting proper drainage.

Tables for baking, cooking, and vegetablepreparation should be adapted for their specificuse. Working height should be adjustable in the34- to 36-inch range. Drawers should be pro-vided for storage of cutlery and other smallequipment used, and should open toward bothsides. Tables, if used from one side only. neednot exceed 24 to 30 inches in width ; if usedfrom both sides, 42 to 48 inches is appropriate.Legs should be constructed so they will notinterfere unduly with floor cleaning. Shelf spaceunder the table top may be enclosed as a stor-age cabinet.

Both stainless steel and laminated maple striptable tops were observed; they. performedequally well. However, attitude of local sanita-tion authorities toward the use of wooden tabletops vary. If the wooden table top is not ofsuperior material and workmanship, cracks candevelop, which harbor bacteria impossible toremove by normal cleaning practices. NationalSanitation Foundation Standard No. 2 for foodservice equipment does not take specific excep-tion to wooden table tops, but several of thegeneral paragraphs of this standard can easilybe interpreted to make the use of such tabletops unacceptable once they develop the slight-est crack.

In the use of tables for specific tasks, bakingtables with shelves in the rear offer special con-venience. The base of baking tables should be


open to accommodate storage of portable binsfor bulk ingredients (fig. 9). The cook's tablemay have an overhead utensil rack, but itsheight should be adjustable, since any standardheight recommended in previous publicationswas considered either too high or too low bykitchen workers questioned on this matter. Anopen shelf below the cook's table will permiteasy storage of pots, pans, and sheets. The baseof the salad table should be enclosed, especiallyif it is used to store dishes.

Portable landing tables 21/2 by 4 feet orsmaller have multiple uses in school kitchens.Stainless steel construction, rubber bumper pro-tection, and caster wheels of at least 5-inchdiameter are likely to assure good performance.Four swivel wheels are preferable. Wheel locksshould be specified if the tables are to be usedfor operation of mechanical equipment.

For smaller tasks, all-purpose utility trucksare needed. Average size is approximately 38inches long, 22 inches wide, and 36 inches high,with two or three decks. In the selection of suchtrucks, gage of material, load capacity of thetruck, size, type, and construction of wheels, andtype and extent of bumper protection should benoted. The same general criteria apply in theselection of portable cooling or utensil racks.Rigid reinforced construction is essential in allsuch carts or trucks.

A fire extinguisher of an approved type andfirst aid kit belong in every school kitchen, andshould be easily accessible.

A

-a,31W4

BN-27319FIGURE 9.Baking table with rear shelves, bulk con-

tainer below the table, and mixer to the left.

Serving AreaIn addition to fixed serving counter installa-

tions, mobile serving counter sections were ob-served in use. In both, functionality of theequipment is highly important, because thespeed and smoothness with which students areserved are very important determinants of labortime and efficiency.

In nearly all schools, serving counters areconstructed of stainless steel. The length of thecounter may vary from 15 feet to 20 feet, de-pending upon the type and number of sections.At the beginning of the line, room must be pro-vided for a tray section, either as an integralpart of the counter or in form of a portable cartor platform. This will require up to 2 feet. Thesilverware section may be located next, takinganother 11/2 to 2 feet of counter space, or it maybe located at the exit end of the counter. Insome installations, silverware is displayed on aseparate table, away from the serving line.

The hot food section should have at least fourrectangular openings to accommodate standard12- by 20-inch pans of different depths, or acombination of smaller pans with the aid of panadapter bars. Dry heat should be provided, anda separate, easily accessible heat control foreach pan space is desirable. Schools with onlythree openings in the hot food section of theirmain serving line reported that a fourth panopening is needed. In two schools, an 8-inch-widedrop, shelf had been attached to the cooks' sideof the hot food section, permitting the cooks toslide plates along the counter when serving hotfood. At other times the hinged shelf was low-ered, so it would not interfere with traffic be-hind the serving counter. A cutting board insertIn lie serving side of the counter, extending nomt:n. than 4 inches beyond the serving face ofthe counter, will fulfill the same purpose. Thewarming table requires from 6 to 8 feet of thelength of the serving counter.

The cold food section is used for display andself-service of bread, salads, fruits, and des-serts. A plain counter top with elevated shelvesis sufficient. This requires another 6 feet of thelength of the serving counter. The entire lengthof the hot and cold food sections should be pro-tected from airborne bacteria by a vertical orslanted sneeze guard. A landing shelf over theguard is desirable, but a reach-through spaceunder the guard also is needed, especially ifelementary school children are served, or if self-service in the cold food section is intended. Theguards may be hinged for easy cleaning, andshould be vented below the upper shelves toprevent steaming.

Some serving counters have an integral milkcooler section for individual 8-ounce containers,

I

18 .MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 753, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BN27314FIGURE 10.Serving line, showing food warmer with cutting board insert, sneeze guard extending over hot and

cold food sections, milk cooler section, and cashier's section. Menu is being posted on the board.

with an automatic lowerator (a device thatautomatically raises as the top containers areremoved to expose supplies stored beneath) per-mitting uninterrupted self-service. Other coun-ters merely provide a space into which a sep-arate milk cooler can be placed. In still otherschools, the milk cooler is placed adjacent tothe serving line. If so placed that supervisioncan be exercised by serving line personnel, andif the flow of traffic in the line is not held up,this also is an acceptable solution. Bulk milkdispensers, preferably with an automatic meas-uring device, are available, but their use inschool lunch operations was not observed in thisstudy.

Ice cream cabinets in nearly all of the schoolsobserved were the property of the dairy com-pany. If mounted on wheels, these self-containedunits can be placed anywhere adjacent to theserving line where an electrical outlet is avail-able.

The cashier's section requires another 2 feetof the serving line. It should be equipped with

a locked cash drawer and a mechanical counterfor the accumulation of five separate totals, ora small cash register with the appropriate num-ber of coding keys. A stool is needed for thecashier, and a foot rest may be needed. Kneespace under the counter should be provided.

The working surface of the serving countershould be approximately 34 inches high, and 28to 30 inches wide. The tray rail should be ofmetal and should offer a solid surface approxi-mately 12 inches wide. Height of the tray railmust be geared to the average size of the stu-dents. Tray rails about 28 inches high haveproved adequate for elementary schools; in highschools they may be 32 to 34 inches high. Fig-ure 10 shows the kitchen side of a modern serv-ing counter.

Tables behind the serving line, pass-throughrefrigerators, menu boards, and other auxiliaryequipment have proved labor-saving in manysituations, but may not be necessary in allschool lunch operations. However, it appearsthat any school lunch operation serving more


than 500 students and offering some food itemsfor sale in addition to the Type A meals willhave reasons to consider their use.

Dishwashing AreaSingle tank, stationary-rack, door-type dish-

washing machines were observed in kitchensserving up to 500 meals per day. This includedkitchens in which divided trays were used, aswell as individual dishes. Two-tank conveyor-type machines were observed handling loads upto 1,800 student meals a day. This also includedkitchens serving food on both individual dishesand divided trays. In larger kitchens, selectionof a dishwasher with a continuous-racking con-veyor may be advantageous.

Proper sizing of dishwashing machines de-pends upon the number of student meals, thenumber of individual dishes, the total dish sup-ply at the school, hours of operation, and thegeneral layout of the dishwashing area. Regard-less of size and type of machine, however, lunch-room personnel in all the schools visited foundit necessary to rinse dishes before putting themthrough the washer. This can be accomplishedmost rapidly if the rinsing unit is combined withthe scraping and food disposal station. A rins-ing brush should be attached to the water sup-ply. Use of a self-feeding food waste disposerwith 11/2-horsepower motor is likely to assurecontinued flow of operations.

Inspection and cleanout doors and automaticdetergent feeders and wetting agent injectorsin the final rinse water aid in efficient operationof dishwashers. None of the schools visited haddifficulty in maintaining the 140° F. wash-watertemperature, but a booster heater is needed toassure the desired 180° to 190° rinse-water tem-perature. Dish and tableware racks are neededin sizes suitable for the machine. They shouldbe of corrosion-resistant material, and relativelylightweight.

Fixed tables for dishes should have stainlesssteel tops, 24 to 36 inches wide, with rollededges ; they should drain toward disposal sinkand dishwashing machine. Space underneath thetables is profitably used for shelves to store dishracks. 'Length of tables varies with size of op-eration, but a minimum of 6 feet is needed topermit deposit of dirty dishes, scraping, rinsing,and stacking into racks. At the exit side of thedishwasher, there should be space for air-dry-ing dishes in five racks. The exit table should beat least 9 feet long.

Handtrucks for transporting clean dishes tothe serving area and for storing dishes underthe serving counter, salad table, or elsewhere,are the same ones used for other purposes in

the kitchens. Other carts for permanent stor-age of dishes may be used to eliminate extrahandling.

LunchroomThe types of tables and chairs selected will

vary with the other purposes for which thelunchroom is used. Folding or in-wall tables withbenches attached are desirable for multipurposeuse of the room and for elementary school stu-dents. Dollies for moving and storing tables willbe needed if they are not part of the foldingconstruction. Folding tables with attachedbenches and integral wheel construction permita janitor to clear and sweep an elementaryschool lunchroom with 250 seats (for dual useas a gymnasium) within 15 minutes.

Chairs rather than benches are preferred forjunior and senior high school students. Chairconstruction should conform to good posturerequirements and be sturdy to withstand dailyuse. Attention should be paid to leg constructionand type of casters in relation to flooring mate-rial, to assure easy and safe moving of chairswithout making undesirable marks on the floor.Portable racks for chair storage are a help dur-ing major cleanup operations. Figure 11 showsa modern lunchroom in a high school. Use ofseparate tables and chairs and selection of colorshelped greatly to create a pleasant atmospherein this lunchroom.

A water fountain with a protected angle-jetmight be stationed near the doors. -Heightshould vary from 24 inches for primary gradesto 36 inches for upper grades. Racks and shelvesfor coats and books may or may not be needed,depending upon local practices and other usesfor the room.

BN27316FIGURE 11.Modern lunchroom in a high school.


Office and Employee FacilitiesHead cooks and lunchroom supervisors should

each be provided with a desk, chair, and filingcabinet. In larger schools. an adding machine ordesk calculator in the kitchen office can elimi-nate the need for frequent trips to the mainschool office. Connection to the intercom systemof the school, if one is available, also is desir-able. A telephone is necessary.

The locker room should provide a separatecloset space with lock for each employee. Toiletfacilities and lavatory are mandatory. Inade-quate facilities in one school studied were be-lieved to have had an adverse effect upon em-ployee morale. A cot and shower facilities areoptional.

Location of Equipment and Layout ofIndividual Work Stations

In the section on basic concepts of layout,straight-line flow of work was cited as themajor objective in locating general service andproduction areas of a school lunch operation.This holds true in arranging work stations with-in the kitchen too. Placement of equipment inthe kitchen and serving area is also governedby a second consideration. The quantities andthe variety of products made in school kitchensrequire that the layout within the kitchen beorganized into individual work stations alongfunctional lines. Products made in the varioussections (such as salad, cooking, and bakery)are quite different and usually cannot be pro-cessed on an assembly line or straight-flow plan,because different equipment is required in eachsection. As a result, it may be more advanta-geous, especially in small school kitchens, tohave a certain amount of additional movementto make fuller use of one specific piece of equip-ment (such as mixer) rather than have severalsimilar pieces of equipment. In larger operationswhere equipment is used more nearly to capac-ity, there will be more justification to duplicateequipment and to adhere more closely to theconcept of straight-line flow of work.

Economy-of-scale considerations and the de-sire for maximum equipment utilization makeplacement of equipment in functional clustersimportant (for example, vegetable peeler andsalad sink and table together in one central loca-tion). But as indicated earlier, these equipmentclusters or work stations must be located inrelation to each other to minimize walking dis-tance and movement of materials.

A number of analytical techniques for evalu-ating the effectiveness of different layouts andlocations of work stations can be used to ad-


vantage. One of them is a distance chart. Itconsists of a scale drawing of the kitchen facil-ity on graph paper, on which 1/4. inch on papergenerally represents 1 foot of distance in thekitchen. This distance chart should be used incombination with a sequence or flow processchart. On the flow process chart are listed inlogical order the steps that have to be completedin preparing individual foods, together with thelocations and equipment used for each process.

In evaluating present and future placement ofequipment and work stations, one should takedifferent floor plans' and measure the distancethat must be covered in each layout when per-forming a given series of tasks; for example,the conversion of frozen hamburger into cookedhamburger. Listing total distances, number ofindividual movements, and other pertinent fac-tors will not automatically answer the questionsabout which layout is better. But it will helpconsiderably in making a decision, in that thosefactors that can be quantified.are expressed innumbers, leaving the lunchroom supervisor freeto devote more .thought to the nonquantitativeaspects of the problem. In the planning andevaluating of layouts for large school kitchens,it may be worthwhile to apply even -more de-tailed methods of layout analysis, as discussedin literature on food service planning.

Just as the selection of individual pieces ofequipment must consider overall balance incapacity, layout within the kitchen must strivefor the maintenance of balance and the avoid-ance of bottlenecks in production and traffic.This is often neglected in space allowances formajor traffic aisles. Aisle space should permitfree, easy movement of essential traffic. Theminimum width for a lane between equipmentwhere one person works alone is 36' inches.Where more than one person is employed ormobile equipment is used, a minimum of 48inches is recommended. Where workers arelikely to pass each other regularly with mobileequipment (such as the access to the dry stor-age area) 60 inches is needed.

Providing adequate aisle space usually meansthat only 1/2 of total floor area in the kitchenshould be covered by equipment, with about 2/8devoted to work areas, traffic lanes, and spacearound equipment for easy operation and clean-ing. This guideline may appear unnecessarilystringent to many local school officials, but thisstudy clearly indicated the importance of thispoint. Only those kitchen layouts in which floorcovered by equipment did not significantly ex-ceed the above figure could be considered ade-quate for traffic flow as well as safety and sani-tation. How seriously a significant departurefrom these values can affect the situation (espe-cially in smaller schools) was evident in a layout

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK MET

in which equipment, due to lack of space forexpansion, covered nearly 50 percent of thefloorspace. In this kitchen, the flow of trafficwas so hampered that 30 percent more labortime per meal was required than in anotherkitchen feeding a similar number of studentsbut having more floorspace. Under such condi-tions, savings in the first cost of providing spacefor the kitchen are quickly dissipated by addi-tional operating expenditures, with concurrentinconvenience and adverse effect on overall effi-ciency of kitchen personnel.

With the basic principles of straight-line andfunctional flow of work in mind, layouts in theschool kitchens observed were evaluated anddiscussed with the respective lunchroom super-visors and head cooks. This led to the followinggeneral conclusions.

Work CentersTable space for main dish preparation should

be located centrally, close to dry food storageand refrigeration areas. Tables 8 to 10 feet longshould be used if two people are expected towork side by side without interference. Whereworkers work opposite each other, a table up to42 inches wide is needed. A small sink at one endof the cook's table is desirable, but not neces-sary if distance to the pot or salad sink is nottoo great. More definite savings in labor timecan be achieved with a pot rack above the cook'stable, drawers for storage of small utensils, andshelves below the table for the storage of potsand pans.

The space between the cook's table and thecooking center should not be a major thorough-fare. The food mixer with attachments or sep-arate food cutter and slicer are properly locatedadjacent to the cook's table, since this is thework area where they will be used most often.

General location of the baking table is moreflexible. If bulk storage containers for flour andother ingredients are kept below the bake table,this can be the work center farthest removedfrom the food storage room. Since extensiveworking space is needed for baking, separatetables (usually 6 feet long) are used if morethan one worker is expected to prepare bakedgoods at a given time.

Easy access to the mixer is important. Inmedium and large kitchens, a separate foodmixer usually is located next to the bakingtables. Also, if distance to the walk-in refrig-erator is considerable, a small reach-in refrig-erator should be within a few feet. Use of port-able racks holding six or more standard-sizebaking sheets reduces the need for a portablelanding table, and makes placement of the bak-ing tables away from the ovens more acceptable.

HODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 21

Portable cooling racks can be used both for load-ing ovens and for cooling the product.

The center-island type of cooking and bakingarea appears to be preferred, although installa-tions along a wall also were observed. Neithertype appears to have a decided advantage inlabor time and effort. Ranges and steam equip-ment usually are placed together, whereas ovens,to the extent that the venting problem can besolved, may be placed somewhere else. It ishighly important, however, that landing spaceis provided for hot pots, pans, or sheets takenfrom the ranges or ovens. Portable landingtables or the cook's table will suffice, if the dis-tance is not more than a few steps.

The sink for cleaning pots and pans, consist-ing of three compartments, should not be farfrom the cooking center. Preferably, it shouldbe possible to reach the sink without having tocross the major traffic lane. At least 4 feet ofdrainboard is needed adjacent to this sink, ifpossible on both sides of the sink. Use of hand-trucks to hold dirty pots and pans temporarily,especially if they have to be soaked, is not asatisfactory solution.

Use of a bacterial sanitizing agent in thethird compartment of the sink is indicated, un-less this compartment is equipped with an im-mersion heater keeping the temperature of therinsing water at 180° F. Otherwise, the pots andpans will have to be sent through the automaticdishwasher for a final sanitizing rinse.

Best location for the vegetable peeler is adja-cent to a sink, somewhere along the straight lineof flow between the storage area and the cook-ing center. Placement directly adjacent to thecook's table or the baking table is not desirablebecause of splashing and odor. A waste disposerin the sink or as part of the peeler helps keepthe area clean.

Large school kitchens usually have a separatesalad sink. If it has at least 4 feet of drainboardspace on each side, this can be used as a workstation. If salads are served on individual plates,a separate salad preparation table is less tiringto use. If the table is not close to the walk-inrefrigerator, a separate reach-in refrigeratorshould be located near it. If salad plates are pre-pared individually, location of the salad tableadjacent to the serving lines and use of a reach-through refrigerator will save labor by reducingtravel of the finished product. Efficient use ofportable landing tables near the mixer in saladpreparation is shown in figure 12.

Location of the bread, butter, and sandwichpreparation area is more flexible. In smallerschools, the salad preparation table can be usedfor this, especially if the bread as delivered iskept on a portable rack. In large schools featur-ing different types of sandwiches in addition to


BN-27310FIGURE 12.Use of portable tables and mixer

attachments in salad preparation.

hot plate lunches, a separate table is indicated.The finished product may be held in a portablerack until it is placed on the serving counter.

Serving LinesThe serving lines, if located in a separate

room, should be adjacent to the kitchen. Theyalso should be located so that they can be closedoff from the lunchroom if that room is used forother purposes. If the serving lines are part ofthe kitchen, the view into the kitchen can beblocked by refrigerators and tables with backshelves, placed so they do not impede traffic be-tween the kitchen and serving area. Having theserving line close to the kitchen minimizes thedistance that hot food must be transported. Italso permits better labor utilization within thekitchen. Scheduling of students through theserving line often will result in a flexible de-mand for kitchen personnel at the serving line.On the other hand, many small tasks to be donein the kitchen during the serving hours can behandled efficiently by serving line personnelonly if they do not have to walk a great distanceto the kitchen.

Both straight-line and L-shaped serving-linelayouts were observed in operation. In speed ofserving students, the shape of the serving lineapparently is less important than the schedul-ing of grades through the serving line and stu-dent discipline. Movement of the studentsthrough the serving line from right to left orvice versa did not appear to affect the efficiencyof serving operations.

Whether the hot food section should be lo-cated closer to the beginning or the end of the

line is a question on which lunchroom super-visors did not agree. If the, serving line movesat a desirable pace of 6 to 8 students per min-ute, the time involved should not affect temper-ature of the food significantly.

DishwashingDishwashing layouts should be adjacent to

the lunchroom so that soiled dishes can be re-turned by students directly through a window.If this is not the case, extra personnel will beneeded to collect the dishes in the lunchroomand transport them to the dishwashing area.Installation of a continuous belt from the lunch-room to the dishwashing area is not justified inmost school facilities.

Inasmuch as dishwashing practices vary (de-pending upon the use of trays or dishes, pre-wash rinsing of individual dishes or racks, andimmediate removal of clean dishes from thearea), the most suitable dishwashing layout alsowill vary. If a food waste disposer is available,and prewash rinsing of individual trays anddishes is desired, these two functions can becombined.

A space of approximately 2 feet for loadingthe racks must be provided between the sink(with food waste disposer) for rinsing thedishes and the dishwasher itself. If rinsing ofthe loaded rack is considered sufficient, severalpersons might scrape the residues into a troughalong the table, and water in the trough wouldflush the residues into the automatic disposer.In this case, the sink for rinsing is best placeddirectly in front of the entrance to the dish-washing machine.

Exit space from the dishwasher should per-mit room for straight forward movement of atleast three racks, so that a temporary interrup-tion of the removal of clean dishes will not stopthe flow of the operation. Room for five racks isrecommended, so that dishes can ,air-dry beforethey are returned to the serving line or stored.The dishwashing tables should permit storageof empty racks on shelves below. Figures 13 and14 show good dishwashing layouts observed inthe study.

The continuous-racking type of dishwasherfor use in large school kitchens requires morestraight-line room for the installation of themachine itself, but only a portable landing tableis needed at the exit end. Thus, total space re-quired for the entire dishwashing layout is notsignificantly different from that needed forthe installation of a smaller machine with auxil-iary tables.

Sufficient space should be provided at the endof the dishwashing machine to permit freemovement of two or more handtrucks for ro-

LAYOUT. EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 23

BN27311FIGURE 13.A small-scale dishwasher layout, featuring

sink (for prewash rinsing) with waste disposer,single-tank door-type dishwasher with automaticwetting agent injector, and booster.

moval of clean dishes. Use of handtrucks, port-able racks, and other mobile equipment addsconsiderably to the flexibility of overall opera-tions. For this reason, it must be stressed thatadequate aisle space for such mobile equipment

=M

EN271118FIGURE 14.Continuous-racking automatic dishwasher

in a school kitchen providing up to 2,000 meals a day.

is not wasted space. Adequate aisle space andextensive use of mobile equipment provide as-surance that the most will be realized from thetotal investment in facilities and equipment.This will also assure better labor utilization.

OBSERVATIONS IN THREE SIZES OF SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS

In cooperation with the Chief of the OhioState Public School Lunch Program, nine schoolswere selected as having above-average kitchenfacilities and as using recommended practicesin the preparation of school lunches. Threeschools were selected in each of the followingsize groups: Those serving from 350 to 500lunches daily; those serving from 700 to 1,000lunches daily; and those serving from 1,400 to2,000 lunches daily.

Each of the nine schools was visited to deter-mine the type of facilities, equipment, layout,and number of personnel, and the average num-ber of meals served during the month beforehe visit. Based on the visits and recommenda-

tions of the Chief of the Ohio School LunchProgram, six schools were selected (two in eachof the three size groups) for 1 week of intensivestudy.

One of the major purposes of this study wasto develop, by reliable methods, a breakdown oftotal labor time expended in kitchen operationsof various sizes and layouts. Since, even withinthe same kitchen, labor time will vary with themenu served, the six schools studied were askedto use the following menu during the week ofobservations.

Menu served at each school during the weekof observations

Day .Monday Spaghetti/Meat Sauce

Tossed Green SaladPear HalfFrench Bread and Butter

MilkTuesday Creamed Turkey on Biscuit

Buttered BroccoliCherry CrispBiscuitmailnkd Butter

Wednesday Hamburger Patty on BunButtered Potatoes and PeasTomato SlicePeach Upside-Down Cake

MilkThursday Beef Stew

Molded Fruit SaladCornbread ana Butter

MilkFriday Baked Fish/Tartare Sauce or

Cheese Meat LoafButtered Green BeansCabbage and Green Pepper SlawRolled Wheat CookieHot Roll and Butter

Milk


Use of the menu facilitated a uniform com-parison of observations. The menu was selectedto include meals generally served in all schoolsin the area and to make use of the kinds ofequipment found in most school kitchens. Ob-servations in each school extended over a fullweek, to include every situation usually encoun-tered in operations; and extensive notes weretaken on work methods, equipment used, andunusual occurrences. Observations in each schoolfor the 5 days were averaged to obtain figuresthat would be representative for Type A hotplate lunches in general, rather than for specifictypes of meals. (Time requirements for a givenday and a particular meal varied by as much asplus or minus 14 percent from the averages.)

Characteristics of Schools StudiedSchoola selected for study are all located in

Ohio. They are designated in this report by theletters A through F. School A is an elementaryschool that was 2 years old at the time of thestudy. Its kitchen, serving line, and dishwash-ing areas occupied 900 square feet with 35 per-cent of the floorspace occupied by equipment.During the study an average of 368 meals wereserved per day. The school had a very goodkitchen layodt with 200 square feet of dry stor-age space and 60 square feet of nonfood storagespace. The kitchen had good equipment and wasdesigned for preparation of 400 meals a day.

School B is also an elementary school, built in1955. The kitchen was designed to prepare 200meals per day, but during the study an averageof 400 meals a day was served. The kitchenoccupied an area of 480 square feet with nearly50 percent of the floor occupied by equipment.While the kitchen layout was good, it wascrowded and lacked sufficient oven space. Only80 square feet of storage space was available.

School C is an elementary school. An averageof 663 meals were served during the study. Theschool was built in 1958, and the kitchen wasdesigned to serve 700 meals a clay. The kitchen,serving lines, and dishwashing areas occupied1,800 square feet of floorspace. Two additionalrooms, with an area of 20 square feet each, wereavailable for storage. The kitchen was ade-quately equipped except that additional refrig-eration and freezer storage space was needed.Equipment occupied approximately 30 percentof the floor area.

School D is a high school. An average of 702meals were served during the study. The kitch-en, built in 1955, occupied an area of 950 squarefeet. Nearly 50 percent of the floor area wasoccupied by equipment. Adequate storage spacewas provided in two rooms occupying 180 squarefeet and 160 square feet, respectively. Sufficientfunctional kitchen equipment was provided.


School E is a high school built in 1958. Dur-ing the study an average of 1,837 lunches wereserved per day, including an average of 766meals shipped out by truck to three elementaryschools. The kitchen occupied an area of 1,800square feet, and about 30 percent of the floor-space was occupied by equipment. The kitchenequipment was modern and functional, and ofadequate capacity ; it included a commercial-sizeflight-type dishwasher. The layout was verygood, except that less than 600 square feet wasavailable in threedifferent rooms for storage.

School F is a combination junior and seniorhigh school built in 1954. Kitchen facilitieswere designed to prepare 1,200 lunches a day.During the study an average of 1,621 luncheswere served per day. The kitchen occupied anarea of 800 square feet, and approximately 45percent of the floorspace was covered withequipment. There was sufficient equipment inthe kitchen, although equipment was used tocapacity. A total of 100 square feet of storagespace was divided into two rooms, with an addi-tional 400 square feet in the basement of anadjacent building. The kitchen layout was notvery good because of the long, narrow designand inadequate floorspace.

Labor Requirements inSchools Studied

Labor required in the preparation, serving,and other activities associated with the meals,shown in the menu (p. 23), was determined bya technique known as work sampling (3) . De-pending upon the number of kitchen workers,between 2,500 and 5,400 individual observationswere made of kitchen personnel at random timeintervals at each school. On the assumption thatthe percentage of observations in each task cat-egory would be proportional to the time spenton that task, the breakdown of total labor timeshown in table 1 was obtained.

Results are reported in table 1 in man-minutesof labor time per meal. While this unit measure-ment must be multiplied by the number of mealsserved at a given school to get total labor time,it is the only unit of measurement that permitsdirect comparison of data from kitchen opera-tions feeding different numbers of students andhaving somewhat different work practices.

The data shown in table 1 include the labortime of all workers whose efforts could be di-rectly allocated to school lunch operations.Labor time of persons contributing their timeto a specific kitchen operation only intermit-tently was prorated. This means, for example,that only the appropriate share of time spent

TA

BL

E 1

.-T

ime

requ

ired

to p

repa

re a

nd s

erve

lunc

hes

in 6

Ohi

o sc

hool

s.(M

an-m

inut

ee p

er m

eal]

Act

ivity

350-

500

mea

ls p

er d

ay70

0-1,

000

mea

ls p

er d

ay1,

400-

2,00

0 m

eals

per

day

Ave

rage

6 Sc

hool

sSc

hool

ASc

hool

BA

vera

geSc

hool

CSc

hool

DA

vera

geSc

hool

ESc

hool

FA

vera

ge

Get

ting

read

y:R

ecei

ve g

oods

and

mov

e in

tost

orag

eM

aint

ain

stor

age

and

mov

ego

ods

out

Setu

p an

d cl

eanu

p w

ork

sta-

tions

Taw

..

Food

pre

para

tion

and

cook

ing:

Prep

are

for

cook

ing

Prep

are

for

baki

ngPr

epar

e sa

lads

Prep

are

brea

ds, e

tc.

Coo

king

and

bak

ing

TO

TA

L.

Serv

ing

of f

ood:

Setu

p se

rvin

g lin

eSe

rvin

g fo

odT

OT

AL

....-

......

.....

... -

.....

...

Cle

anup

act

iviti

es:

Was

h di

shes

and

pot

sG

ener

al c

lean

upT

amIn

cide

ntal

act

iviti

es:

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

plan

ning

Del

ays

Pers

onal

nee

dsT

OT

AL

..

To

TIM

E -

-L--

-.

0.08 .07

.18

0.06 .09

.30

0.07 .0

8

.24

0.04 .09

.17

,

0.10 .21

.26

0.07 .15

.22

0.07 .1

2

.20

0.09 .1

3

.17

0.08 .1

2

.19

0.07 .1

2

.22

.33

.45

.39

.30

.57

.44

.39

.39

.39

.41

.34

.31

.25

.17

.22

.79

.35

.30

.17

.32

.57

.33

.27

.17

.27

.47

.33

.17

.09

.22

.64

.37

.31

.03

.27

.56

.35

.24

.06

.24

.42

.18

.10

.04

.21

.53

.36

.13

.17

.27

.48

27 .11

.10

.24

.53

.32

.21

.11

.25

1.29

1.93

1.61

1.28

1.62

1.45

.95

1.46

1.20

1.42

.13

.93

.22

2.15

.17

1.54

.28

1.27

.47

.33

.37

.80

.64

.31

.53

.17

.58

.24

.38

.86

1.06

2.37

1.71

1.55

.80

1.17

.95

.70

,.8

21.

24

1.27 .52

1.04 .6

71.

15 .60

1.04

,.7

1.7

8'.6

4.9

1.6

7.7

9.6

2.9

8.7

3.8

9.6

8.9

8.6

51.

791.

711.

751.

751.

421.

581.

411.

711.

571.

63

.35

.16

.06

.37

.08

.05

.36

.12

.06

.43

.42

.06

.41

.04

.05

.42

.23

.06

.54

.37

.05

.52

.46

.06

.53

.42

.05

.44

.26

.06

.57

.50

.54

.91

.50,

.71

.96

1.04

1.00

.76

5.04

6.96

6.00

5.79

4.91

5.35

4.66

5.30

4.98

5.46

I i


by the lunchroom supervisor on matters relatedto the specific kitchen operation studied wasincluded under the category "Administrationand Planning." Similarly, if the custodian regu-larly performed a job (such as the daily clean-ing of the lunchroom) that in other schools wasdone by the female kitchen workers, the appro-priate share of his time was included under"General Cleanup." A third situation that oc-curred frequently was the use of student helpin the kitchen. Student labor time also wasincluded under the appropriate task category,like "Dishwashing" or "Serving," since in otherschools these jobs were performed by paidworkers.

Total Labor TimeWhen the labor time of all people contribut-

ing to the production of the meals was included,it was found that an average of 5.46 man-min-utes was needed to prepare and serve a meal forone person. This is equivalent to an average ofabout 11 meals per man-hour. The range ob-served in the six schools extended from 4.66man-minutes per meal in school E (12.9 mealsper man-hour) to 6.96 man-minutes per meal inschool B (8.6 meals per man-hour). These dataindicate a somewhat greater use of labor, orlower output per worker per hour, than theaverage output of 12 to 14 lunches per workerper hour considered normal by many lunchroomsupervisors. The main reason for this differenceis that lunchroom supervisors generally do notinclude their own time or that of the janitorwhen making their calculations.

The variation in labor requirements amongthe six schools was analyzed in regard to differ-ences in total size of operations, layout of phys-ical facilities, availability of equipment, andmanagement and work practices. However, noone of these characteristics appears to have asufficiently strong influence upon all componentsof total labor time that it could be ranked moreimportant than the,others. But when labor timeneeded for the completion of tik44cific tasks wascompared it became quite evident that certainfactors (such as physical layout -or managementpractices) can have an overriding effect on thetime needed for a given task. The fact thatschool B, serving 400 students a day, had thehighest labor requirements, and that school Ewith over 1,800 meals a day had the lowest laborrequirements appeared to be a coincidence. Sec-ond lowest in labor requirements was school D,serving 702 meals a day, and second highest wasschool C, serving 663 meals a day.


Getting Ready for Meal PreparationReceiving goods, maintaining the storage

room, and setting up work stations took an aver-age of 0.41 man-minute per meal, or 7.3 percentof total labor time. Considering the many dif-ferent activities included in this category, this:s a relatively small part of the total effort.Variations encountered among the schoolsranged from 0.33 to 0.57 man-minute per meal.

Receiving and moving foods and supplies intostorage took an average of 0.07 man-minute.This activity included unloading, checking, andstoring incoming shipments. Products weremoved into storage on 4-wheel handtrucks, andappropriate records were kept for each receiv-ing. Daily deliveries were usually received andhandled by the women kitchen workers. Onlylarge shipments of canned goods or USDA-donated commodities arriving in bulk requiredthe assistance of the janitor or some other malehelper. Lowest labor requirement observed forthis task was 0.04 man-minute, due primarilyto the fact that no large shipment of staplefoods was received at that school during theweek of observation. The highest figure, 0.10man-minute, involved a school in which thestoreroom for staple foods was not directlyaccessible from the receiving area. In otherschools, labor requirements for receiving goodswere kept low because produce, milk, and breadwere placed in the storage area or at their placeof use by the delivery truck drivers.

Maintaining storage areas and moving goodsout of storage for use took an average of 0.12man-minute, with a range from 0.07 to 0.21.The time for this work appears to be heavilyinfluenced by the size of the storage area andits distance from the kitchen. The 0.07 figurewas observed in school A where the storageroom is directly adjacent to the kitchen and 0.5square feet of storage floorspace is provided permeal. The high figure of 0.21 was the result ofinadequate room in the storage area next to thekitchen. Even though two other areas had beenpressed into service and offered enough room,the need for daily restocking the kitchen store-room from the other areas added to labor re-quirements. Furthermore, in the more crowdedstorerooms, extra time was needed to keep theshelves arranged.

Setting up and cleaning up work stations tookby far the greatest part of the time needed toget ready for meal preparation. This activityincludes time spent assembling equipment andmachinery, and removing these items from thework station for later cleaning. It also coverswalking from one work station to another, and

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 27washing hands when changing jobs. The 0.22man-minute required for these activities repre-sents from 3 to 4 percent of total labor time inthe lunchroom operation. The observed rangefrom 0.17 to 0.30 man-minute reflects primarilydifferences in the storage location of equipment,aisle space between work stations, and workers'planning of the job. Use of a pot rack over thecook's table and availability of table drawers forthe storage of small hand tools help to keep thissegment of labor requirements down. Availabil-ity of adequate pot sink and drainboard spacealso is important, in that it permits soakingpans and equipment until enough of them haveaccumulated to make pot-washing worthwhile.

Preparation and Cooking of FoodAll types of food preparation and the cooking

and baking took, on the average, 1.42 man-min-utes or 25.8 percent of the labor effort per mealprepared. Many different activities are includedin this category and are subject to the samemajor influenceslayout and location of workstations, methods of operation, and equipmentavailability.

A major factor beyond the control of localoperations that influences time requirements forthe preparation and cooking of meals is the sizeof operations. Data on the different schools indi-cate that larger batches of food and highercapacity of equipment in larger schools tend toreduce labor requirements per meal in foodpreparation. In school E, the largest operationobserved, only 0.95 man-minute of labor forfood preparation and cooking activities was re-quired, whereas in school B more than 1.9 man-minutes were needed for the same output.

Food was prepared in the cooking departmentin an average of 0.53 man-minute per meal. Therange was from 0.34 in school A to 0.79 man-minute in school B. In school A the cook's table,mixer, slicer, and other equipment needed arecompactly arranged. The largest kitchen, schoolE, achieved nearly the same effect through theuse of portable landing tables for food prepara-tion; these tables were positioned adjacent tothe mixer and other equipment needed, as shownin figure 12. The high figure in school B's kitch-en resulted from placement of the work stationin front of the cook's table, which required fre-quent stepping aside for passing traffic. Inade-quate table space and low height of the workingsurface (32 inches) may also have adverselyaffected labor requirements in this kitchen.

In terms of labor practices, small kitchenshave some disadvantages. Often the food cutter,shredder, or other attachments for the mixer

are not available; or if they are available, theonly mixer in the kitchen may be in use whenneeded. At other times, the small quantity ofcutting or chopping to be done may not makeit worthwhile to assemble the equipment. As aresult, the job is performed by hand, and laborrequirements are increased. Availability of sep-arate equipment for preparations in the cookingdepartment will help keep labor requirementseven in smaller kitchens at a low level.

Preparation for baking required an averageof 0.32 man-minute per meal. The highest figurewas 0.37 in school D and the lowest was 0.18 inschool E, where biscuits were not baked for theTuesday menu. The main reason for similarlabor requirements among the schools appearsto be that methods used by individuals in bak-ing preparation are more uniform than forpreparation for cooking. Usually, a separatetable located away fro;;. traffic is provided. Useof bulk containers under the baking table forflour, sugar, and other frequently needed ingre-dients helps to keep baking preparation timedown.

Average time needed for salad preparationwas 0.21 man-minute. Variation observed washigh, ranging from 0.10 in school E to 0.31 inschool D. This activity was defined to includethe preparation of all foods that need not becooked, such as fresh salads, and the openingof canned fruit to be served as dessert. The highvariation observed in the preparation of saladsappeared to be due to differences in methods anduse of equipment. For instance, not all opera-tions included the same number or amounts ofdifferent fresh vegetables in the tossed salad.Also, in two of the schools, the cabbage andgreen pepper slaw was chopped by hand ratherthan with a mechanical shredder. Finally, someof the schools served their salad on separatesaucers ; others kept it in a large container andserved directly onto divided trays. Use of manydifferent ingredients in the tossed salad im-proved the taste, but increased labor require-ments. Serving salads on individual saucers in-creased the appeal of the meal to the student,but this practice also tended to increase labortime. On the other hand, use of mechanical foodcutters and shredders helps reduce the timeneeded. The same can be said for the use ofelectrical can openers when preparing cannedfruit for serving.

Although the average time needed for thepreparation of bread and butter amounted toonly 0.11 man-minute, the variation from a lowof 0.03 in school D to a high of 0.17 man-minutein schools A, 13, and F was striking. This differ-ence was due again to the varying methods


used. Schools with the higher labor butteredbread and buns in the kitchen. Schools D and Eserved bread and butter separately, using por-tion-controlled butter patties. Those who but-tered by hand reduced the time required bywhipping the butter with a mixer before spread-ing it. Another labor-saving practice observedwas the slicing of several loaves of french breadat the same time, rather than running each loafseparately through the automatic slicer.

The cooking and baking of food was accom-plished in an average of 0.25 man-minute permeal. Here, size of operation as well as type ofequipment appeared to influence time require-ments. In school B where range tops and stackovens were used 0.32 man-minute was needed,whereas in the largest kitchen, school E, wherecompartment steamer, steam-jacketed kettles,and the more compact convection-current bak-ing ovens were used only 0.21 man-minuteyielded the same results. Steam cooking equip-ment needs less attention than stock pots on arange top. Also, the larger quantities that canbe prepared in the steam cooking equipmentspread the labor effort over a greater numberof meals, cutting down the per-meal labor re-quirement. Deck ovens with inside light andviewing windows and ovens with freely adjust-able shelves were said to offer both added con-venience and reductions in labor requirements.

Serving of FoodSetting up the serving line and actually serv-

ing food to students took nearly as long as pre-paring and cooking the food. Average time forserving was 1.24 man-minutes per meal, or 23percent of total labor time. The range of 0.70in school F to 2.37 man-minutes in school B re-flects the different methods used. Variations inphysical facilities and scheduling of studentsthrough the serving line also influenced laborrequirements.

Setting up the serving line includes all pre-paratory activities at the serving line and in thelunchroom. Examples of these activities aremoving hot food from the cooking area into thehot food section of the serving line, displayingcold food on the serving counter, filling thecooler with milk from the walk-in refrigerator,checking the availability of trays, dishes, andsilverware, refilling salt and pepper and ketchupdispensers on the tables, and wiping tables forthe next occupants.

Two major factors that affect the time re-quired for all these activities are the distance ofthe serving line from the kitchen area, and thepractices used in serving. If cold foods are dis-played on individual dishes, time for setting upthe serving line will be increased, but time


needed to serve the students will be less than iffoods are dished onto trays as the studentsmove past the counter. Average time needed forsetting up the serving line was 0.38 man-min-ute, with a range from 0.13 in school A to 0.64in school E. In school A, a small grade-schoolkitchen, the serving lines were located in thekitchen. Only hot plate lunches were served, andno individual dishes were involved. The deliveryman plac?.d the milk into the serving line cooler,so that no kitchen labor was needed for thisactivity. In school E, a high school, the foodswere displayed on individual plates, and stu-dents had a limited selection among foods, con-sistent with Type A lunch requirements. Foodswere also served on individual plates in schoolsD and F where the time to set up the servingline was relatively high.

The serving of food includes the time of per-sonnel behind the serving line. The activities ofthe cashier at the end of the line are includedunder the "Administration" category. Timespent by serving-line personnel replenishingfood supplies at the serving line during thelunch hour was included under "setting up ofserving line."

Average time needed to serve food was 0.86man-minute per meal. Since it amounted to 13.6percent of total labor time, it deserves carefulstudy. The range from 0.17 man-minute inschool F to 2.15 man-minutes in school B indi-cates that there are factors that can influencelabor requirements. One of these factom is thedistance of the serving line from the kitchen.Although this is an important determinant ofthe time needed to set up the serving line, it iseven more significant in determining time spentin the actual serving.

The reason this distance is so significant indetermining serving time is that even with thebest scheduling of classes through the servingline the requirement for workers attending thatline will vary. If the line is located within oradjacent to the kitchen, workers generally re-plenish supplies at the serving line, or performminor tasks in the kitchen, as breaks in theserving line occur. But if the distance to thekitchen is too great, they will remain at theirpositions, even if they are not needed at thatmoment.

The second factor influencing labor require-ments for serving is the use of individual dishesfor salads and desserts, prepared before thestudents' arrival. This increases labor require-ments for that activity, but once the studentsstart moving through the line, ft.., prior prepa-ration of these dishes permits faster movementand requires fewer attendants behind the coun-ter.

A limited choice of foods and the activities

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 29of the cashier at the end of the line did not cre-ate any bottlenecks in the movement of stu-dents through the line. Also, use of student help(for example, in the handing out of milk car-tons) did not have any adverse effect upon labortime required for serving. Finally, the speedwith which the serving line was moving was notbelieved to affect labor time significantly.

School B, with the highest labor require-ments, used an entirely different method ofserving students. In this school, the food,already on plates, was carried by student helpersto the tables before the students arrived. Thismethod resulted in higher labor requirementsand an undesirable drop in the food tempera-ture.

Cleanup ActivitiesThe washing of dishes and pots and general

daily cleanup of kitchen and lunchroom took avery significant share of total labor time. Theaverage observed for these activities was 1.63man-minutes, or 29.6 percent of total labor time.Practices varied considerably, with students,part-time, and full-time help doing the dish-washing, and janitorial or kitchen personnel do-ing the daily cleanup chores. Variations in totaltime used, however, were extremely small.

Dish- and pot-washing took an average of 0.98man-minute per meal. Here, differences in phys-ical facilities and setup appeared to explainmore of the variation in time (0.78 man-minutein school D to 1.27 man-minutes in school A)than the participation of students or part-timehelp. School D had adequate space at the potsink, and final hot rinsing of pots was done inthe dishwashing machine. The dishwashing ma-chine was a single-tank, door-type model, andits use extended over 21/2 to 3 lours per day.The dishwashing layout was very functional,with a reach-through window from the lunch-room, and a food waste disposer built directlyinto the sink for rinsing the dishes. The dish-washing load consisted of divided plastic traysand individual dishes for salads and some hotfoods. In school E, which had the second lowestdishwashing time, a continuous-racking con-veyor dishwasher was used.

In schools with greater labor for washing potsand dishes there were usually inadequate potsink and drainboard space, a dishwashing lay-out away from the lunchroom requiring extraworkers for the collection of dishes at a centraltable in the lunchroom, and the need for super-visory personnel to oversee students performthe dishwashing operation. Only in one case wasthe dishwashing layout not adjacent to thelunchroom. In all the schools, students wererequired to deposit their soiled dishes at a cen-tral location.

General cleanup activities include daily sweep-ing of the lunchroom floor and mopping of thekitchen. (They do not include the more infre-quent scrubbing and waxing of the lunchroomfloor.) Average time needed for these generalcleanup activities (except those discussed pre-viously under "Getting Ready for Meal Prepara-tion") amounted to 0.65 man-minute per meal.In most kitchens, the janitor cleaned the floors,but in one operation the women in the kitchenhandled all cleanup chores: Practices did notvary significantly. Cleaning time varied little(from 0.52 to 0.71 man-minute per meal) inspite of noticeable differences in who did thecleaning and how much space had to be cleanedper meal served.

Incidental ActivitiesActivities incidental to school lunch opera-

tions, but not directly associated with the phys-ical preparation of meals, took 0.76 man-minuteper meal, or 13.5 percent of total labor time.Variation among different schools ranged from0.50 in school B to 1.04 man-minutes in school F.

The greatest part of these incidental activi-ties was the administration and supervision ofkitchen operations. This category includes thetime spent by the head cook or lunchroom su-pervisor in supervising or instructing kitchenworkers, checking bills, writing supply needs,and conferring with cooks regarding the menu.It also includes the sale of lunch tickets to stu-dents, cashiering by persons designated to thistask (which may be cooks, part-time helpers,the school secretary, or even students), and thecounting of money, reconciliation of records, andbanking done by kitchen supervisory personnel.Whenever lunchroom supervisors were in chargeof more than one school kitchen, their workingtime was prorated among the schools on thebasis of their own estimates.

The variation in time used for supervision,administration, and planning was not as muchas that in some of the physical activities. Aver-age time devoted to administration and plan-ning was 0.44 man-minute per meal, with arange from 0.35 in school A to 0.54 in school E.In school A the manager worked in the kitchenfull-time and did her administrative work be-tween tasks. In school E a full-time lunchroomsupervisor maintained cost-accounting recordsand followed up potential problem situations andideas that might help to improve overall opera-tions.

In every operation, whether it be a productionline or office work, there are some unavoidabledelays. The average 0.26 man-minute of delaysper meal encountered in school lunch operations(4.5 percent of total labor time) is significantlylower than one would expect in the average pro-


duction situation. Yet the amount of nonproduc-tive time per meal can vary significantly. Thelowest figure observed was only 0.04 man-min-ute of unavoidable delay time occurring inschool D. This low delay can be attributed togood coordination of efforts, and a scheduling ofthe working hours of full-time and part-timeworkers that coincided closely with the varia-tions in the total work load during the day. Onthe other hand, the high delay of 0.46 man-minute in school F and 0.42 man-minute inschool C was caused primarily by the long travel -

distance from the kitchen to the serving line:workers could not work in the kitchen duringbreaks in the serving line.

Time taken by workers for personal needs andtime unaccounted for amounted to a uniformlow of approximately 1 percent of total workingtime in all the operations studied.

It is apparent that the labor time expendedfor different tasks in school kitchens is affectedby a multitude of factors that can work eitherin favor of or against a reduction of total effortneeded. Some of these balance each other; theyreduce time needed to accomplish one task, butincrease time needed for the completion ofanother. Furthermore, some task categoriesappear to lend themselves more toward a re-,duction in effort than others because of theirsize and variability. Thus, while every part ofschool lunch preparation should be looked at asa possibility for reducing labor requirements,the larger categories appear to offer the great-est opportunity for savings.

Specifically, good layout of facilities and avail-ability of equipment will help reduce timeneeded fo the preparation and cooking of food ;attention to work practices can help lower thetime needed for the serving activities in partic-ular; and speed appears to be more of a govern-ing factor in dishwashing and general cleanuptime than differences in practices or work as-signment.

Effect of Kitchen Layout on Labor Timeand Effort

Since floorspace and layout within a kitchenare believed to have a strong influence uponboth total labor time and effort required in thepreparation of school lunches, separate observa-tions were made to measure the influence ofthese two factors upon the amount of time spentworking or walking or in delays. Kitchens inschools E and F were selected for these observa-tions. Observations were confined to kitchenworkers only; activities of lunchroom super-visors, student helpers, and janitors were not The flexibility offered, because by far theincluded. greatest part of working time is not equipment-


The kitchen in school E had 1.0 square foot offloorspace per meal served daily, whereas schoolF had only 0.5 square foot, with about 45 per-cent of that space covered by equipment. Aislespace in school F kitchen was very narrow, andwomen at their work stations generally had tostep aside to let somebody pass. The situationwas made somewhat more tolerable because analternative route from one end of the kitchento the other was available through the lunch-room.

Observations were categorized into working,walking, and delays on the assumption that thebasic work in any kitchen -of this feeding vol-ume is approximately the same. Thus, any un-due increase in the time spent walking or beingdelayed would tend to indicate a less efficientworking situation.

Results obtained did not give a clear indica-tion that availability of floorspace alone makesutilization of labor efficient. Differences in lay-out of the two kitchens and other factors re-sulted in more of the labor effort going into theactual accomplishment of work in the school Fkitchen than in the school E kitchen. This tendsto verify another observation made at all six ofthe schools studied : the workers were consciousof the handicaps under which they had to workand tried to compensate for this by applyinggreater effort. This reflects well upon schoolkitchen workers in general, but school officialsmust recognize that work can be done more effi-ciently in a facility with a reasonable amount ofspace and a functional layout of work stations,not only in terms of time but also in energyexpended.

Although the results of the additional obser-vations in the two large kitchens did not ade-quately measure the advantage to its workersof a more spacious kitchen, they did reveal someinteresting data. For instance, on the basis ofthe nearly 2,000 observations made, from 65 to75 percent of total labor time is given to theactual doing of work. Between 15 and 25 per-cent of total time is spent walking, 9 to 12 per-cent is taken by delays, and 1 to 2 percent goesfor personal needs and time unaccounted for.

Work in school kitchens is flexible in its tim-ing. While 65 to 75 percent of total time wasspent working, only 5 to 10 percent of total timewas "equipment-controlled" work. Equipment-controlled work refers to a situation in whichthe presence of a worker at a piece of equipmentis mandatory, and the speed of work is gov-erned by the machine. An example would be thestirring of a stock-pot of food on the range top,the feeding of a food cutter in operation, or the

)loading of the dishwasher once it is in operation.


controlled in its timing, gives management agreater opportunity to shift workers around.On the other hand, it puts greater emphasis onthe planning ability of individual workers, be-cause they must frequently select the best se-quence of operations on their own.

The 15 to 25 percent of total labor time de-voted to walking reflects differences in size ofkitchen, layout, and specialization of workers.During about one-third of the time spent walk-ing (5 to 8 percent of total labor time) workersare transporting something. This may be themoving of pots and pans, or pushing a hand-truck. The remaining trips reflect the need tochange work stations frequently.

The 9 to 12 percent of total labor time takenby delays results as much from unavoidable de-lays as from the need to pause occasionally dur-ing an uninterrupted work shift of severalhours. Unavoidable delays will take a greaterpart of total time if planning by managementand individual workers is lacking, and if physi-cal layout and aisle space impede the free flowof traffic. The 1 to 2 percent taken for personalneeds or time unaccounted for are so minor thatthey need not be of concern.

Application of Findings inOther Schools

The six school kitchens, for which data intable 1 are shown, were selected because theywere considered to have efficient operations. It

Name Jane S. Johnson

is possible for school lunch managers to obtaina labor expenditure breakdown for their schoolsthat will provide a meaningful comparison withschools included in the study. The suggestedcomparison developed by the manager wouldinclude a labor breakdown by major groups,such as getting ready or food preparation andcooking as shown in table 1, and would excludea breakdown of labor expenditure within themajor groups. It is suggested that the schoollunch manager determine the number of mealsprepared per day and read the descriptive infor-mation on the two schools studied that are thesize of their operation.

Records should be developed for a period of2 or 3 weeks on labor time spent by each personin the cafeteria in the five areas of the schoollunch operation. The five areas include the ma-jor groups in table 1, getting ready, food prepa-ration. serving of food, cleanup activities, andadministration and planning. Figure 15 is anexample of the type of form each employeeshould be requested to complete at the end ofeach day for the 2- or 3-week study period. Thedata should be summarized on a man-minute-per-meal basis which would make it comparableto the data collected in the schools studied andshown in table 1.

By comparing the data with that obtained inthis study the manager can determine areas inwhich excessive labor is required. Once suchareas are isolated it is possible to determine thecause or causes of excessive labor requirementsand to develop ways of reducing the labor re-quirements.

Activity Study

Time Start Work 10:00 A.M. Time Finish 2:30 P.M.

Activity Minutes

Getting ready (receive goods, maintain storage, setup and cleanup work station) 20

Food preparation and cooking (cooking, baking, salads, bread) 160

Serving food (includes setting up serving line) 50

Cleaning (includes dishwashing and general cleanup)

Administrative (inCludes cashiering, meal planning, and supervision) 10

Total time (excluding lunch) 240

Muss 15.--A sample form for determining labor requirements of each employeein school lunch operations.


Operating Costs and Cost ControlThe primary objective of school lunch opera-

tions is to furnish students with nutritious andwell-balanced meals. Yet, as part of a public in-stitution, school lunch operations also have aresponsibility for the wise and efficient use offunds in attaining their service objective. Forthis reason, operating costs and cost control areof as much concern in school lunch operationsas they are in commercial establishments. Thisrequires the maintenance and periodic analysisof records and the use of information derivedfrom these records in future planning.

Types of Records and Cost ControlRegular and accurate accounting for all in-

come and expenditures on an annual basis is anormal part of school and lunchroom adminis-tration. The form in which these records arekept is governed by local, State, and Federalregulations, and records are subject to externalaudit at least once a year.

Additional records are needed to comply withrequirements for participation in the variousFederal- and State-administered school lunchprograms. These records relate primarily to thenumber of students buying lunches, complianceof the menu with nutritional requirements, andmilk costs and consumption. Auditors and re-viewers of the appropriate State department ofeducation can provide guidelines for the properestablishment of these records.

Beyond the requirement of keeping track ofall income and expenditures and number ofmeals served, school lunchroom supervisors areknown to maintain their own inventory controlsystems and to give specific attention to eco-nomical purchasing. Sources of supply are eval-uated in terms of price and quality of product,service, and reliability. Wherever prices of prod-ucts are subject to seasonal fluctuations, pur-chases are timed to minimize cost. All of thesepractices will go a long way toward minimizingoperating costs.

Financial accounting concentrates on the re-cording of past results. To make these datamore meaningful from a performance stand-point, conventional accounting data must beconverted into ratios of average food and laborcosts per meal. The ratios should be comparedwith operating results achieved in other schoolsto get an indication of the relative standing ofthe operations.

As long as a comparison of past operatingresults of a given school kitchen with resultsin similar school lunch operations turns out fa-vorably, there usually is no immediate cause forconcern. But if the comparison shows that agiven kitchen operation has been lacking in per-

formance, the supervisor is confronted with thetask of finding the causes for these shortcom-ings. Poor performance may be evidenced byhigher-than-average food or labor costs permeal, an undue labor effort per meal in terms oftime, or low or variable student participation inthe lunch program throughout the year. This iswhere the value of cost-accounting records be-comes apparent.

Cost accounting, as distinguished from finan-cial accounting, concentrates on the recordingand analysis of current data and performance.Usually these data are immediately convertedinto ratios, such as cost per meal, that permitan evaluation of stated goals. Thus, a lunch-room supervisor may have an established goalthat average out-of-pocket food cost per mealserved should not exceed 18 cents. If the prelim-inary cost calculations indicate that the menuspecified for a given week results in averagefood cost of 20 cents, she will know immediatelythat she either must revise the menu for thatweek or compensate for it by awing up amenu for the following week that will cost lessthan the average set as a goal.

The type of records used (and amount of timespent on maintaining them) need not be veryelaborate. One record form being used in someschools is shown in figure 16. It can be adjustedto fit the needs and desires of the individuallunchroom supervisor, and may be reproducedlocally. More elaborate versions, incorporatingthe data for an entire week on a single sheet,are available in printed form. If these recordsare maintained, no more than a half-hour of thehead cook's or lunchroom supervisor's timeshould be involved.

The form can be used to advantage in menuplanning as well as in checking performanceafter the day is over. Foods are listed in cate-gories according to their nutritional value. Thishelps call attention to the relative cost of pro-viding protein, vitamin, and carbohydrate re-quirements. Specific types and amounts of foodused are listed in order that their total cost canbe calculated. These costs usually can be derivedfrom recent invoices. A check of the currentinventory will verify that the amounts neededactually are on hand. A preliminary estimate ofthe number of meals to be served and an actualcount later on are needed to convert the costinto a per-meal figure, which is the usual basisfor comparing the expected or actual outcomewith the results achieved at other times.

Labor requirements for food preparation willvary from one menu to another. In many in-stances, more uniform daily labor utilization isachieved by preparing certain foods a dayahead, particularly if labor requirements arelow on one day and high on the next. Hence, it


Date: Expected number of meals to be served:

Menu:

Foods used Quantity Unit cost Total cost

Milk

Protein-rich foods:

Vegetables and fruits:

Vitamin A foods:

Vitamin C foods:

Other foods:

Bread, etc.:

Butter, or fortified margarine

Additional foods to meetenergy needs:

Total food cost

Total labor cost and remarks:

Actual number of meals served

Total food cost per meal served

Labor cost per meal served

Amount of holdover and plate waste

FIGURE 16.--Sample form for daily cost accounting in school lunch operations.

[


is helpful for later analysis to record not onlythe total working hours logged on a given day,but to supplement this with comments on activ-ities accomplished that were not related to thepreparation of the menu for that day. In schoolkitchens where all employees serve on a fixedcompensation contract, the labor cost figure forany given day will usually be the same. Yet, therecording of hours and extra activities will pro-vide valuable information for later analysis andfuture planning of labor utilization.

The advantages of maintaining both dailycost-accounting records and the required finan-cial accounts become especially evident if achange in operating procedures is planned, or ifa new person is about to take over managementduties. If, for instance, operating results for agiven period reveal a need to reduce food costper meal, a review of the cost-accounting rec-ords will show which menus were the most ex-pensive, and how frequently they were served.Or these records might show that none of themenus contributed to the high average cost, butthat a frequent overestimation of the numberof students to be served caused greater quanti-ties to be prepared than were needed. Or finally,it might turn out that certain foods were sounpopular with students that their appearanceon the menu caused a significant decrease inmeal participation for that day, thus increasingcost per student served. Being able to pinpointthe causes of the trouble, and what improve-ments can be expected from certain remedialactions, takes the guesswork out of correctiveaction that is inevitable when lunchroom super-visors rely entirely upon memory.

Another value of daily cost-accounting rec-ords is their aid in training new head cooks.Availability of working records to show howsituations were handled successfully in the pastis likely to reduce apprehension as well as theerrors in planning that must be expected duringthe learning period. Also, in case of an unex-pected change in management, the records willenable the incoming lunchroom manager to ad-just her practices to insure maximum continu-ity of operations. The benefits derivable from afew minutes each day spent on formal planningand record-keeping beyond the mandatory partof the job are manifold. It is strongly recom-mended, therefore, that all managers, eventhose of small operations, formalize their plan-ning and evaluation of results by putting thepertinent data on paper, rather than relyingentirely on memory for the details.

Pertinent Cost Categories and IncomePertinent categories of operating cost gener-

ally recognized in school lunch operations are

direct labor cost, purchased food cost, the costand value of donated food, and the value ofservices donated by the local school board.

Direct labor cost usually includes salaries andwages paid to kitchen personnel. In some in-stances, contributions to employee retirementfunds and the salary of the lunchroom super-visor are included in the value of services do-nated by the school rather than being chargeddirectly to the operation of the lunchroom. Di-rect labor cost will vary from one location toanother, depending upon the efficiency withwhich labor is used (man-minutes of labor re-quired for the preparation of one meal), andupon wage rates. Efficiency of labor utilizationis under the control of local management. Wagerates, however, generally are set to competewith other employment opportunities in thecommunity, and as such are not under the con-trol of kitchen managers.

In this study, direct labor cost varied from 8to 14 cents per meal. This variation was due asmuch to differences in wage rates as to differ-ences in efficiency in labor utilization. Assistantcooks were mostly paid on an annual basis, withcontracts ranging from $1,080 to $1,512. Basedon actual hours of work, this amounted to awage rate of $0.86 to $1.48 per hour, not includ-ing fringe benefits. Pay of kitchen helpers hiredon an hourly basis ranged from $0.90 to $1.75.Especially in areas with high wage rates, closeattention to labor efficiency is needed to keepcosts down. Direct labor cost amounted to 30-40percent of total costs in the six schools studied.

Cost of purchased food will vary with loca-tion, typo of menu, and, most of all, the itemsincluded. Food costs reported at the six schoolsranged from 14 to 21 cents per meal includingthe cost of milk purchased. This wide range isdue primarily to the sale at some schools of fooditems in addition to Type A plate lunches.Depending upon menu practices, purchasinghabits, and location of the school, food costsamounted to 55 to 65 percent of total costs atthe schools studied. Less than 10 percent ofcosts were for nonfood items.

The value of USDA-donated foods used bythe schools studied during the week of observa-tions was assessed at an average of 5-6 centsper meal, priced at current market value. Actualcosts to the school for this food were limited todelivery charges and amounted to only a frac-tion of a cent per meal served.

The value of services donated by the board ofeducation usually is calculated several timesduring the school year to arrive at total localexpenditures for the operation of the lunch pro-gram. Items included vary from one location to


the other. The following are representative typesof charges:

A fixed percentage of the total electric andheat billsA fixed percentage of the water and sewerbillsCharges for kitchen refuse collectionFees for extermination and sanitation serv-icesCharges for labor and transportation ofsurplus commodity deliveriesA prorated share of the janitor's andmaintenance supervisor's salaries .

Employer's contributions to welfare -pro-grams for kitchen employeesA prorated share of the payroll clerk's sal-arySalaries of lunchroom supervisors.

RECOMMENDED FACILITIES,It has been emphasized in this report that

differences in local conditions make it impossi-ble to follow precisely any standard set of rec-ommendations in planning and operating localschool lunch programs. But the general princi-ples and experiences of other schools discussedpreviously will become more meaningful if theyare presented in a form that can actually beobserved when visiting a well-planned schoolkitchen. For this reason, information containedin the previous two chapters has been combinedinto a description of recommended facilities andlabor utilization for school lunch operations inthree different size groups.

The plans presented in this chapter representonly one of the many equally acceptable solu-tions. Furthermore, under specific local condi-tions, departures from the standards incorpo-rated in these model operations may well be nec-essary.

In the development of the following floorplans, lists of equipment, and suggested plans oflabor utilization, three basic assumptions weremade:

(1) The physical facilities for the schoollunch operations would be part of the overallschool complex. As such, their location andshape must be adjusted to fit into the overallplan.

(2) Growth potential must be provided. Therecommended plans provide an increase of 50percent in the number of meals to be servedabove the initial meal load. Any larger increasein the number of meals to be served is assumedto call for the construction of additional school

Although most of the above services of thelocal school system are taken for granted, theydo represent actual costs that cannot be over-looked. Even if spread over a sizable number ofmeals, they can amount to as much as 5 to 6cents per meal served.

Income from school lunches consists of mealcharges to students and adults. These chargesusually are set by the local board of education,and they can vary between elementary and highschool students, students and teachers, and onelocation and another. Representative mealcharges in the six schools visited were 25 and30 cents for elementary students, 30 and 35cents for high school students, and 40 cents foradults. The number of free meals furnished toneedy students also varied. It was generally leftto the school superintendent to verify the needand to distribute free meal tickets to studentsfalling into this category.

LAYOUT, AND EQUIPMENT

facilities which would have their own kitchenspace.

(3) The upward trend in labor cost will con-tinue, probably at a greater rate than the up-ward trend in food cost. For that reason, floor-space, layout, and equipment were selected tomake the most effective use of labor.

Although these basic assumptions are gener-ally applicable, local school officials will have toalter some of the basic relationships shown inthe recommended plans to fit the underlyingideas into their own building program. Beforethey make such alterations, however, it is rec-ommended that they review pertinent commentsin the two previous chapters of the report. Thereason for this is that some of the relationshipsand dimensions are more critical than others intheir effect upon functionality of the facilityand efficiency in labor utilization.

Facilities and LayoutFigures 17, 18, and 19 show floor plans for

small, medium, and large school kitchen opera-tions, respectively. Basic dimensions and floor-space recommended by each operation are sum-marized in table 2.

The type of floor plan presented in figure 17for a kitchen designed to serve 350 to 500 mealsper day is patterned closely after a standardplan that has been used by a large school dis-trict in several of its past construction projects.Kitchen personnel throughout this district arefully satisfied with the functionality of the lay-out, and measurement of labor requirements


N NW

Soiled dish table

\ / Pre-rinse0 Jr./ \ sink with

Wastedisposer

4,--l-tankconveyordish mach.

0re,a=

N=aa.

(7).S-...

c-Ic,ar

Lunchroom Area

Serving line4--...C

(I it

Cashier

Lavatory

Mixer 60 qt.

Freezer60 cu:ft.

\Utility truck

Walk -in

cooler

Utilitytruck

Non-foodStorage

Milk

Tray rail

Cold food a

Slicer

Steam cooker,F1

/

Sink-v

Locker0r57 Room

Toilet ll I Lockers

I 0 I 2 3 4 5 6Illiliiiiiiiiiil

Scale in Feet

CP z.0 °". 40= 0

WaPCa

ii.;cra

41---

CAS< IO O.60PC

Waste disposer

-----,1-1\o's//I/ \ \Peeler

I

000

Tableware

Tray rack

0 11Co"' 00a

Mixer 20 qt.

Pot sinks

0 g?..... -.

F 9,..

Coolingrack

\ / \ /0 0/ \ / \

---7-t-i!3

C0PC

Shelves

Dry Food Storage Area

Unloading Waste

Dock Holding

Area

FIGURE 17.Reconunended kitchen layout for a school lunch operation designedto provide 360 to 500 meals a day.

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 37during this study indicated that it is an efficientplan.

In this floor plan, the back hallway is used asa receiving area. However, a separate waste-holding area outside the back door has beenadded. to avoid holding empty cartons and cansin the back hallway until the janitor or trashremoval truck picks them up. The floor plandoes not provide separate office space. It is as-sumed that working records are maintained withthe help of clipboards at the food storage roomentry and near the cooking center. Desk spacein the school office permits the kitchen man-ager to keep her permanent records there. Asan alternative, a desk could be placed in thenonfood storage area, provided closets are usedthere for the storage of cleaning supplies.

The lunchroom, which should be adjacent tothe serving line, is not shown in the sketch. Itshould provide at least 2,000 square feet offloorspace and approximately 200 seats. Shapeand layout of the lunchroom will be governedby the overall building plan and the uses towhich this room may be put in addition to be-ing a dining area.

The floor plan for the medium-size operation(fig. 18) serving between 700 and 1,000 meals aday, includes two L-shaped serving lines as apart of the kitchen. 'Even though these requireslightly more floorspace than straight servinglines, they are more easily fitted into the desiredrectangular space of the overall kitchen area.The 10-foot opening from each serving area tothe lunchroom can be closed with a folding door.

In this size of operation, unnecessary crosstraffic must be avoided, since during the peakhours from 10 to 15 people will be active in thekitchen area. The vegetable peeler is placedclose to the food storage area and rear hallway

because potato peeling involves bulk and moreodor and sanitation problems than other food-preparation activities. The preparation centerfor the main dish is located centrally, and closeto the refrigerated storage area. All cookingand baking is placed together under one centralhood and exhaust fan system, although some ofthe newer convection-current electric bakingovens may be placed elsewhere and vented sep-arately without great cost. The salad center issomewhat distant from the walk-in refrigerator,but has its own reach-in refrigerator. The lunch-room (not shown) adjacent to the serving linesshould provide at least 3,800 square feet of floorspace and 400 seats.

Developing a layout for an operation provid-ing up to 2,000 meals a day is a complex task.The greater distance between working areasand the greater bulk of materials to be handledmake compromises that could be incorporated ina small plan much less acceptable. For that rea-son, fairly extensive experimentation with arough sketch and templates to represent eachpiece of equipment will be required before a sat-isfactory layout can be developed.

In figure 19 an attempt is made to minimizethe distances that materials must be moved.The receiving area is enclosed. From there,goods can be moved into the dry food storagearea, or they can be received at the second door-way and transported directly into the refriger-ated storage areas. The vegetable peeler andsink are along the direct line of travel betweenthe food storage area and the cooking center.This is important, because at a volume of 2,000meals per day, the quantity of potatoes that willhave to move through this facility within oneschool year can easily exceed 20 tons. For thesame reason, the cooking center is only a few

TABLE 2.-Space recommended for 3 sizes of school lunch operations.

Area

350-500 mealsPer day

(200 seats)

700-1,000 mealsper day

(380-420 seats)

1,400-2,000 mealsper day

(550-600 seats)

Total Per meal(range) Total 1`'''' Per meal

(range) Total Per meal(range)

Sq. ft. Sq. ft. Sq. ft. Sq. ft. Sq. ft. Sq. ft.Kitchen and serving:Food preparation, including refrigeration 540 1.6-1.1 980 1.4-1.0 1,470 1.0-0.7Serving 200 .6- .4 620 .9- .6 1,100 .8- .6Dishwashing 150 .4- .3 220 .3- .2 280 .2- .1Food storage 280 .7- .6 460 .7- .6 800 .6- .4Nonfood storage 70 .2- .1 70 .1- .1 120 .1- .1Office, employees' dressing room, and

rear hallway 160 .6- .8 260 .3- .2 430 .3- .2Total 1,850 8.9-2.7 2,600 8.7-2.6 4,200 8.0 -2.1

Receiving dock and waste-holding 70 80 200 ...--Lunchroom 2,000 3,800 5,500Per seat 10 9-10 9-10

Tab

lew

are

Ser

ving

line

Mil

food

0 co

T1y

rai

l

Milk

crea

mIc

eI

Col

dfo

od.)

Cas

hier

0:0

2 0

Tra

y ca

rtR

efrig

25 c

u ft

Util

ity tr

uck

Slic

er

40 g

alke

ttle

Dis

h ru

cks

8-I

Iil

*/T

raar

Tray amt

111

Cos

hie

aM

ilkIc

eC

r ea

rnC

old

foo.

.d.\

Tray

rou

4

Ser

ving

line

Tab

lew

are

Tra

y to

rtIII-

*

Lava

tory

Coa

ling

rack

Tab

le

Tab

le4F

ood

cutte

r

She

lf

Bov

e ta

ble

Mon

200.

3-de

ckB

ake

oven

oven

Ste

am c

ooks

}

Mix

er 6

0 qt

.

Ref

rig

25cu

ft

Ran

ge8

grill

Ran

ge

7).

a.

Was

te d

ispo

ser

---*

NN

OCooks

Tab

le w

ith p

ot r

ock

Er

sink

11-9

Util

ity tr

uck

Pee

ler

Util

itytr

uck

Wal

k -in

free

zer

Wal

k-in

cool

er

Cha

ir

Offi

ce

cabi

net

She

lves a 0 O la

- PIO

form

truc

k

Non

-foo

dS

tora

geW

ashe

r 8

Dry

er

Lava

tory

O

Cha

ir

Lock

er R

oom

Toi

let

0 -J

Sho

wer

Was

te

Hol

ding

Are

a

Unl

oadi

ng_

Doc

k

J

FIG

UR

E: 1

8.R

ecom

men

ded

kitc

hen

layo

ut f

or a

sch

ool l

unch

ope

ratio

n de

sign

ed to

pro

vide

700

to 1

,000

mea

ls a

day

.

I0

12

3 4

5 6

1161

11'1

1111

dS

cale

inF

eet

ca 00

Milk

Col

dfo

od

4D

oor

from

hal

fway

MO

Tro

blew

ave

Ser

ving

tine

a Cas

hier

Tro

y ro

d

CII

Col

dfo

od

Milk

LO

\ / \2-

tank

cv-

1ve

yor

dish

wci

st

er. \0/

Cas

hier

uth

y tr

uck

Tro

y ca

rt

Tro

yca

rt

Coo

ling rock

1

.13 °'

I30

ot

Util

ity tr

uck

MItk

Tro

y ro

d

4 Ser

ving

line

F3b

;;;;;1

Col

dfo

od

MT

hfo

od EJ

oy c

art

z 0 1

Y1=

olw

1,

(Coo

ling

Lro

c -I 0

File "b

me'

Des

k

Offi

ceA

rea

7

Cha

rm,

O

7 g

Ran

ge -

gnll

com

b

Ran

ge

Non

-foo

d st

orag

e

f>7_

7(1.

\./.0

/W

aste

C., /

d %

pose

r0

Pee

ler4

Coo

ks s

ink

Com

p st

eam

er

Mite

r60

of

Util

ity tr

uck

Min

er

20 c

it

HU

tility

truc

k

'Coo

ling

rock

Foo

d cu

tter

1.0 Dry

Foo

d S

tora

ge LO

U Il

llytr

uck

.1=

U il

itytr

uck

In to

0

Loyo

la y

Was

te

Look

ers Cho

irsLo

cker

.R

om

Lock

ers

Fxau

11R

ecom

men

ded

kitc

hen

layo

ut f

or a

sch

ool l

unch

ope

ratio

n de

sign

ed to

pro

vide

1,4

00 to

2,0

00 m

eals

a d

ay.

Rec

eivi

ng,

It Pla

tform truc

k

Was

te H

oldi

ngA

rea

1 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

Sca

lein

Fee

t


feet from the food storage room. All aisles be-hind work stations are wide enough to permitsomeone to pass without interrupting theworker.

Two L-shaped serving lines and one straightline were selected to permit exit from all threelines into the lunchroom. The L-shaped servinglines can be closed off from the lunchroom byfolding doors. Another possibility would be theseparation of the serving lines from the kitchenby a wall, with reach-through refrigerators be-hind the serving lines becoming part of the wall.The dishwashing area is large enough to permitinstallation of a continuous-racking type ofdishwasher. The lunchroom for this kitchen op-eration should provide at least 5,500 square feetof floorspace.

EquipmentMajor equipment needed for the operation of

the three suggested facilities is listed in table3. The types of equipment suggested were dis-cussed previously. The equipment is sufficientfor production of the number of meals at theupper end of the feeding range quoted, exceptin the largest, operation. It may not be neces-

sary at the beginning to install all the equip-ment shown, as long as the peak meal load willnot be reached for a few years. However, if sucha decision is reached, the spaces intended forthe later installation of the equipment and thenecessary utility lines should be provided sothat no changes or additions will be necessaryexcept for installation of the equipment itself.

Cooking in these kitchens is oriented towardthe use of steam equipment, because of thegreater speed, labor savings, and higher capac-ity of this type of equipment. Some range spaceis available, but those kitchen managers whohave adapted their operations entirely to steamcooking may find no need for the range space.In the large operation, 1,500 students probablycan be fed per day with two triple-deck bakeovens as a minimum. Also, the third mixer inthe largest operation probably will not be re-quired until the kitchen is used to maximumcapacity of 2,000 meals.

The capacity of the potato peelers in all threemodels is intentionally kept low, since the newermodels take only a few minutes to process oneload and can turn out the quantity of peeledpotatoes needed within a short time. Loads ofmore than 30 pounds would be difficult to han-dle when no male help is available.

TABLE 3.Equipment required for recommended kitchen layouts,3 sizes of school lunch operations.

Equipment 350-500 mealsper day



Num- Num- Num-Cooking and baking equipment:

ber Type ber Type ber TypeRange, with combination grill

surface, 30-36 in. wide 1 (with oven below) 2 ........ 2CompartmentSteamer, 3 compartments 1 1 2Steam-jacketed kettle 1 40 gal. 1' 60 gal. 2 60 gal.

1 40 gal. 1 40 gal.Oven for baking and roasting 1 8 deck 1 3 deck 2 3 deckOven for bakingt adjustableshelves, convection current. .... 1 1Hood or canopy, above allcooking and baking equip-ment, with exhaust fan,filters, and lights. 1 8 x 10 ft. 1 8 x 18 ft. 1 8 x 22 ft.

Mechanical equipment:Mixer, with portable stand 1 20 qt. 1 20 qt. 1 20 qt.Mixer, floor model

1 30 qt.Mixer, floor model, with bowldolly and adapters for 30 qt. 1 60 qt. 1 60 qt. 1 60 qt.Mixer attachments:9-in. vegetable slicer ....... 1 1 1Dicer 1 1 1Meat and food chopper 1 1 1Vegetable peeler, with cab-

inet base and 'trap 1 15-20 lb. 1 15-20 lb. 1 30 lb.Food cutter 1 1 1Food slicer, angle feed 1 10- to 12-in. blade 1 10- to 12-in. blade 1 10- to 12-in. bladeFood waste disposer 1 I.% hp. 2 VA hp. 2 Pk hp.


TABLE 3.Equipment required for recommended kitchen layouts,3 sizes of school lunch operationscontinued

Equipment 350-500 mealsper day



Num- Num- Num-ber Type ber Type her Type

Refrigeration equipment:Walk-in refrigerator 1 8 x 10 ft. 1 8 x 12 ft. 1 10x 12 ft.Reach-in refrigerator, at work

stations 1 30 cu. ft. 2 25 cu. ft. .Reach-through refrigerator,

behind serving line ..-.... .... 2 40 cu. ft.Walk-in freezer 1 8 x 10 ft. 1 8 x 12 ft.Reach-in freezer 1 60 cu. ft.Sinks:

Sink in cook's table 1 1 compartment 1 1 compartmentVegetable preparation sink 1 2 compartments 1 2 compartments 2 2 compartmentsVegetable sink drainboardarea 1 aft. 1 Oft. 1 14 ft.Pot sink 1 2 compartments 1 3 compartments 1 3 compartmentsPot sink drainboard area ...- .._ 4 ft. .... 8 ft. .... 8 ft.Hand lavatory 1 2 »...... .

Tables:Cook's table 1 Utensil rack 1 Utensil rack 1 Utensil rackFood preparation table 1 Flat 2 Flat 3 FlatFood preparation table 1 Back shelf 1 Back shelf 4 Back shelfTable, silverware display .._ .._ 2

Portable equipment:Landing tables .._ __Cooling racks 1 8Tray racks 1 3 4Utility trucks 3 2 or 3 decks 5 2 or 3 decks 6 2 or 3 decksHandtruck 1 Heavy duty 1 Heavy duty 2 Heavy duty

Serving lines, complete, 4 rect.angt-lar openings, cold foodsection, cooler? silverware andcashiers sections, and trayrail 1 2 8

Dishwashing equipment:Soiled-dish table 1 9 ft. 1 12 ft. 1 13 ft.Sink for rinsing soiled dishes 1 ..... 1 2 ... --.Automatic dishwasher 1 Single-tank

conveyor1 Double-tank

conveyor1 Double-tank

conveyorClean-dish table 1 8 ft. 1 10 ft. 1 13 ft.Auxiliary equipment:

Washing machine 1 Household 1 HouseholdDryer 1 Household 1 HouseholdLockers, dressing room 5 10 18Cot 1 1Chairs 2 3 4Kitchen :stools 2 3 4Desk and chair ............ -......--. .... 1 2File cabinet 1 1

An item that may be considered optional inthe small volume kitchen is the food cutter. Onthe other hand, equipment that is valuable inany size of operation, yet often not found insmaller kitchens, includes the utensil rack ontop of the cook's table and the portable coolingrack for holding hot baking sheets or pans offood stacked on top of each other.

In the largest operation, reach-through re-frigerators are placed behind the serving linesto permit holding and passage of food from thekitchen to the serving lines. In the two smalleroperations, reach -in refrigerators are placednext to the major work stations. However, in allcases, major dependence will be upon the walk-in refrigerator. Freezer space provided in all

42 MARKETING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 753, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREthree layouts should make these schools inde-pendent of the use of rented commercial freezerspace.

All three of the recommended plans includeautomatic conveyor-type dishwashing machines.The larger models of this type of machine haveproved adequate in operations feeding morethan 1,500 students per day. However, becauseit is necessary to stack dishes in individualracks and because normal operating procedurespermit only about 70 percent utilization of thestated capacity of the machines, dishwashingtime may extend to 2 hours or more when indi-vidual dishes are used rather than divided trays.If a shorter dishwashing time is desired, a con-tinuous-racking type of machine may be pre-ferred.For two seatings in the dining room, the num-ber of dishes available should equal about two-thirds of the total daily meal load. This willassure flexibility when dishwashing operationscannot be started as soon as the first studentsleave the lunchroom.Type and number of pots and pans will de-pend largely upon the preferences of the kitchenmanager. For the operations discussed here,stainless steel cooking ware is recommended.

Pans should be of standard size (12 by 20inches) or half-size (12 by 10 inches) and vary-ing depth (6, 4, or 21/2 inches). Baking sheetsshould also be of standard size (18 by 26inches). Small equipment is not listed in detail,since it is a matter of preference. Furthermore,if additional small equipment is needed, it canbe obtained in a few days without major admin-istrative approval.

Labor Requirements in RecommendedKitchens

Labor requirements for the preparation ofType A meals in the recommended kitchens areinfluenced somewhat by economies of scale inlarger operations. This is reflected in the break-down of labor time required per meal in eachoperation as shown in table 4, Activities in-cluded in each task category are the same asthose discussed in the previous section entitledLabor Requirements in Schools Studied.The labor requirements shown in table 4 foreach size of kitchen operation (figs. 17, 18, and19) include all people contributing to the opera-tion of the kitchen and serving lines. These re-quirements are close to those observed undersimilar conditions in the six school lunch opera-tions studied. The data are reasonably achiev-able averages for the preparation of menus sim-ilar to the ones shown on page 23, and staffing

of facilities as indicated in table 5. Labor re-quirements shown in table 4 for kitchen person-nel may be as much as 10 percent lower, depend-ing on how much janitorial help is used in suchtasks as receiving supplies and cleaning thelunchrooms and kitchens, and how many admin-istrative duties are handled by a separate lunch-room supervisor rather than by the head cook.Economies of scale in labor utilization existprimarily in the preparation and cooking offood, since the preparation of larger quantitiesof food and the use of higher capacity equip-ment are not always associated with a corre-sponding increase in labor requirements. On theother hand, the serving of food is more a mat-ter of organizational talent and good timing, andsmall schools can be just as efficient as thelarger schools. The same holds true for inci-dental activities.Inasmuch as economies of scale are limitedlargely to the preparation and cooking of food,a task requiring from VI to 1/5 of total labortime, the differences in labor requirements permeal between the largest andthe smallest facil-ity are not as large as one might believe. Laborrequirements per meal in the smallest kitchenare less than 15 percent higher than those inthe largest kitchen. However, all three opera-tions shown are designed on the same principlesand incorporate basically the same type ofequipment. Wherever facilities differ in theirbasic layout, type of equipment, and size, largerdifferences in labor requirements per meal mustbe expected.

Methods to be followed in the general opera-tion of the facilities and in preparation andcooking of food are assumed to be the same inall three operations. The only deviation thatmay be necessary relates to serving practices.The serving practices of the small operation arelikely to be more prevalent in elementary schoolsthan those of the larger operations, because useof divided trays appears to be more widely ac-cepted in elementary schools than service onindividual dishes. The time requirements re-flected in table 4 assume that in the 350- to500-meal operation food is dished out on dividedtrays to students as they pass through the serv-ing line. This calls for a relatively low setupthr.e for the serving line, but a slightly longertime in serving. In the two larger operations, itis assumed that all side dishes (such as saladsand desserts) are served on individual platesdisplayed in the cold food section of the servingline. This requires a slightly higher time forsetting up the serving line, but the servingitself will be more rapid.The staffing needed in the recommendedkitchens will depend upon the volume of meals


TABLE 4.-Time required to prepare Type A meals in recommended kitchen layouts,3 sizes of school lunch operations.

[Man-minutes per meal]

Function 350-500meals per day

700-1,000meals per day

1,400-2,000meals per day

Getting ready:Receive goods and move into storage 0.07 0.06 0.06Maintain storage and move goods out .12 .10 .10Setup and cleanup work stations .21 .20 .18

Total .40 .36 .34

Food preparation and cooking: .

Prepare for cooking .53 .45 .41Prepare for baking .32 .25 .20Prepare salads .21 .15 .12Prepare breads, etc. .11 .08 .05Cooking and baking .25 .24 22

Total 1.42 1.17 1.00

Serving of food:Setup serving line 25 .55 .50Serving 1.00 .70 .65

Total 125 1.25 1.15

Cleanup activities:Wash dishes and pots 1.00 .95 .90General cleanup .65 .60 .60

Total 1.65 1.55 1.50

Incidental activities:Administration and planning .45 .50 .45Delays .28 .31 .30Personal needs .05 .06 .06

Total .78 .87 .81

Grand total 5.50 5.20 4.80

to be prepared. The number of people in variousjobs are shown in table 5. The lower number ofpeople in each category relates to an outputequivalent to the lower number of meals per dayfor which the facility was designed, whereas thelarger number of people should permit operationat the upper limits of output shown. Total man-hours per day expended in the entire operationare consistent with the per-meal labor require-ments shown in table 4.

In table 5, personnel assignments are de-scribed in general terms only. Each of the as-sistant cooks should be able to perform the jobof the others if the need arises. However, it isassumed that each of the senior assistant cooksis responsible for the preparation of food in agiven department, such as main dish, salads,

desserts, or baking. Such assignment of respon-sibilities helps increase pride of individuals intheir work and permits maximum advantagefrom specialization.

Most of the work is performed by full-timeemployees. Nevertheless, it is desirable to levelpeak workloads during the day by using part-time workers who come in primarily during thenoon hours. Since no student help is used in therecommended operations, the part-time helpneeded must consist of workers from the out-side, who come in each day for a 3- to 4-hourperiod. A record of their daily working hours iskept, and they are paid on an hourly basis.

All kitchen workers are assumed to be women,as is generally the case. However, in the largestof the operations, one of the assistant cooks


TABLE 5.Suggested personnel assignments and working hours for preparing Type A meals inrecommended kitchen layouts, 3 sizes of school lunch operations.

Size of operation andworker assignment Duties Workers1

Regularworkinghours2

Totalman-hoursper days

350-500 MEALSPER DAY

Head cook Planning, supervising, and participating in kit-chen work; inventory control; general ad-ministration.

1 7:30 a.m.to

2:00 p.m.

6

Assistant cooks Preparation of food, cooking, baking, serving,(1 person at cash register during servinghours) ; general cleaning, receiving goods,storeroom maintenance.

3-4 7:30 a.m.to

2:00 p.m.

18-24

Kitchen and lunchroom Setting up serving line; dishwashing; and 2-4 10:30 a.m. 6-12helpers. general cleaning. to2:00 p.m.Janitor Cleaning lunchroom and kitchen floor; dis- 1 Intermittent 2Posing of trash.

Total 7-10 32-44700-1,000 MEALS

PER DAYLunchroom supervisor Administrative duties, planning and supervis-

ing school lunch operations.1 Intermittent 3-4

Head cook Planning, supervising and participating in kit-chen work; inventory control; maintainingrecords.

1 7:00 a.m.to

2:30 p.m.

7

Assistant cooks Preparing food, cooking, baking, serving, andgeneral cleaning; receiving goods; storeroommaintenance; operating cash register dur-ing serving; wiping tables in lunchroom asneeded.

6-9 7:30 a.m.to

2:00 p.m.

36-54

Kitchen and lunchroom Setting up serving line; wiping tables in 1-2 10:30 a.m. 3-6helpers. lunchroom; general cleaning. to2:00 p.m.Dishwashers Washing dishes, pots, pans; general cleaning. 3-4 10:30 a.m.

to9-12

2:00 p.m.Janitor Cleaning lunchroom and kitchen floors; dispos-ing of trash; assisting in heavy lifting whenneeded.

1 Intermittent 3-4

Total 13-18 61-871,400-2,000 MEALS

PER DAYLunchroom supervisor Administiative duties; planning and supervis-

ing school lunch program; central purchas-ing of food and supplies.

1 Intermittent 4-5

Head cook Planning, supervising, and participating inkitchen work; receiving goods; inventorycontrol; maintaining records.

1 7:00 a.m.to

3:30 p.m.

7-8

Assistant cooks Preparing food, cooking, baking, serving, andgeneral cleaning; receiving goods; storeroommaintenance; operating cash register dur-ing serving; wiping tables in lunchroom asneeded.

10-15 7:30 a.m.to

8:00 p.m.

70-105

Kitchen and lunchroom Setting up serving line; wiping tables in lunch- 3-4 9:30 a.m. 12-16helpers. room; general cleaning. to2:00 p.m.Dishwashers Washing dishes, pots, pans; general cleaning. 4-5 10:30 a.m.

to16-20

8:00 p.m.Janitor or maintenancesupervisor.

Cleaning lunchroom and kitchen floors; dis-posing of trash; assisting in heavy liftingwhen needed.

1 Intermittent 3-6

Total 20-27 112-160

I Range refers to operation of facility at lower and upper limit of output.S All kitehen workers take 1/2hour for lunch.

LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK METHODS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH KITCHENS 45might profitably be a full-time male kitchenhelper. His duties would consist primarily ofmoving bulky supplies, such as potatoes andcase goods, and many of the minor maintenancejobs that otherwise would be performed by thejanitor.

Reliance upon janitorial assistance for clean-

ing floors is limited to weekly major scrubbing offloors and waxing or polishing lunchroom floorswhere applicable. These tasks usually are doneat times other than the regular hours of kitchenand lunchroom operation. No provisions aremade for annual inventory and cleanup activi-ties.

BIBLIOGRAPHY(1) ANDERSON, K. E.

1958. SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS IN ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF THE UNITEDSTATES. U.S. Dept. Agr. Mktg. Res.Rpt. 262, 48 pp. Washington, D.C.

(2) ANDERSON, K. E., and HooFNAGLE, W. S.1960. THE MARKET FOR FOOD IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

U.S. Dept. Agr. Mktg. Res. Rpt. 377,58 pp., illus. Washington, D.C.

(3) BARNES, R. M.1957. WORK SAMPLING. 2d ed. John Wiley &

Sons, New York, N. Y.(4) DAVIS, R. C., and FILLEY, A. C.

1962. PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT. AlexanderHamilton Institute, Inc., New York,N. Y.

(5) DONALDSON, BEATRICE, and PROUD, DOROTHY.1964. SELECTING, ARRANGING AND USING FACILI-

TIES FOR SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS.Univ. of Wis., Bul. 567, 24 pp. illus.

(6) KOTSCHEVAR, L. H. and TERRELL, M. E.1961. FOOD SERVICE LAYOUT AND EQUIPMENT

PLANNING. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,New York, N. Y.

(7) MAYER, R. R.1962. PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT. McGraw-Hill

Book Company, Inc., New York, N. Y.(8) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

1956. A GUIDE FOR PLANNING AND EQUIPPINGSCHOOL LUNCHROOMS. U.S. Dept. Agr.PA-292, 60 pp., illus. Washington,D.C. (Reprinted April 1962.)

(9)

( 10)

1959. FOOD STORAGE GUIDE FOR SCHOOLS ANDINSTITUTIONS. U.S. Dept. Agr. PA-403,42 pp. illus. Washington, D.C. (Re-printed March 1965.)

1961. THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM -FIFTEEN YEARS OF PROGRESS, 1947-1961.U.S. Dept. Agr. PA-469, 20 pp., illus.Wash. D.C.

9 t/. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1069 0 356.903

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL 1 11Rt.AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

,.6

POSTAGE & FEES PAIDUMW &otos Doporimont of Agriculfuto

document resume title - eric · filmed from best available. copy. u s. department of health....

Documents