Introduction

School cafeteria workers have made the news in recent years for reasons ranging from "heroic" efforts to continue serving meals to children during the COVID-19 pandemic to "lunch shaming" children who are not able to pay for their meal at checkout.¹ According to scholars, this is unsurprising: lunch ladies have historically been cast in both positive and negative lights.² The term lunch ladies itself has various connotations, and has been both embraced and rejected by individuals who work as frontline cafeteria staff.³ For one, it emphasizes the gendered nature of the workforce (discussed in the history presented in the Appendix of this report)—a dynamic that mirrors other care-related professions.⁴

A perennial focus on frontline cafeteria workers masks the broader workforce involved in feeding children during the school day, which includes managers and administrators, dieticians, chefs and food preparation staff, dishwashing staff, warehouse workers, and drivers, as well as the frontline servers and cashiers who are more visible in the school lunch line. Many of these are public sector jobs but some positions are privatized in certain school districts.

The federal government invests roughly $20 billion annually in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP)—collectively referred to as the school meals programs.⁵ Enacted and proposed reforms to the school meals programs have largely centered on topics such as the sourcing and quality of food and meals, program administration, and eligibility rules for students, rather than the school foodservice workforce. However, as school nutrition staff underlie the functioning of these systems, and nearly half of federal school meal reimbursements go toward labor costs,⁶ Congress might consider issues such as whether school foodservice departments are attracting and retaining talent and whether workers have the appropriate skills to implement federal reforms. There might also be interest in examining compensation, workplace safety, and labor standards more generally for such workers.⁷ In addition, Congress might examine current policies that directly affect school nutrition workers, including hiring standards and annual training requirements added by the 2010 reauthorization of child nutrition programs.

In addition to providing context for consideration of these issues, this report is meant to fill a gap in the research by presenting descriptive statistics on the characteristics and labor market outcomes of school foodservice workers using American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2015 to 2019.

Defining the School Foodservice Workforce

This report defines the school foodservice workforce or school nutrition workforce (used interchangeably) as the school and district-level staff directly involved in administering school food programs and preparing and serving school meals, including both public and private-sector employees. It does not include other workers involved in school food production, such as those employed by school food suppliers and manufacturers. The data presented in this report (see the "Characteristics of Public School Foodservice Workers" section) are specific to public sector school foodservice workers, but some comparisons with private school foodservice workers are presented in Table 8.

There were roughly 130,000 public and private elementary and secondary schools nationwide as of school year 2017-2018 (the most recent official figure).⁸ Most of these schools have some form of food service, though the scale and nature of such operations differs widely.⁹ For example, some school districts prepare meals at a central kitchen and distribute them to schools; in other cases, schools prepare meals onsite. Other schools and districts contract with private vendors to prepare and/or serve meals.

While individual schools and districts have significant discretion in deciding whether and how to operate a foodservice program, not everything is locally determined.¹⁰ Schools and school food authorities (SFAs)¹¹ participating in the federal school meals programs must comply with federal requirements, including nutritional requirements for meals and hiring standards and training requirements for staff (discussed further in the "School Meals Program Laws and Policies" section). The federal programs also establish rules around when and how school foodservice departments can contract with private companies to provide school meal labor and services (discussed further in the "Outsourcing" section). The majority of public schools and a minority of private schools nationwide participate in the school meals programs; as of fall 2019 (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), nearly 90,000 public schools and 4,600 private schools participated in NSLP.¹²

Not all of the research and data presented in this report is specific to workers in SFAs operating the federal school meals programs, though such SFAs represent the majority of schools and districts nationwide.

Types of Positions

Federal school meal program regulations¹³ broadly define three types of school nutrition staff:

School nutrition program directors are those individuals directly responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of school food service for all participating schools under the jurisdiction of the school food authority.

School nutrition program managers are those individuals directly responsible for the management of the day-to-day operations of school food service for a participating school(s).

School nutrition program staff are those individuals, without managerial responsibilities, involved in day-to-day operations of school food service for a participating school(s).

The School Nutrition Association (SNA), a membership and advocacy organization for school nutrition professionals, created a more detailed taxonomy of school foodservice positions based on a 2019 survey, as shown in Table 1. Not all schools and districts employ every position listed; for example, not all districts have a central kitchen/central kitchen manager. In other cases, there might be more than one employee per position; for example, the survey found a median of 15 full-time and 19 part-time foodservice assistants per district.¹⁴ In addition, Table 1 may not accurately depict every employee's place of work; for example, in districts with a central kitchen, cooks and foodservice assistants would likely work at the district level rather than the school level.

The research and estimates presented in this report pertain to different positions (as noted throughout). For example, some studies examine the experiences of frontline cafeteria workers, while others describe managerial and director-level staff. The ACS estimates in this report are limited to public sector school foodservice occupations that can be identified in ACS data using standardized occupational codes, and exclude some positions such as cashiers, drivers, and certain district-level administrative staff.

In addition to paid employees, school foodservice departments also sometimes utilize volunteers (who are not included in the estimates in this report).¹⁵

Outsourcing

USDA regulations allow SFAs to outsource certain aspects of their school meals operations, including procurement, food preparation, and food service, to a foodservice management company (e.g., larger companies include Aramark, Chartwells/Compass Group, and Sodexo).¹⁶ For example, a district may contract with a private company only to prepare and deliver meals to schools, or the contract may involve the company serving meals to students onsite as well. Outsourced foodservice employees may therefore include administrative, food preparation, and/or frontline cafeteria staff. A nationally representative USDA survey in school year 2014-2015 found that in public SFAs that used foodservice management companies, 73% delegated preparing meals, 57% delegated serving meals, and 51% delegated food procurement to the company.¹⁷

However, school meals program regulations require that SFAs retain general control over the operation of NSLP and SBP, including managing finances and complying with state and federal requirements.¹⁸ Therefore, some district-level foodservice staff are still necessary in a district that chooses to outsource its foodservice operation.

Roughly one-quarter of SFAs outsource at least one aspect of their foodservice operation. Specifically, a nationally representative survey conducted by USDA in school year 2016-2017 found that 26.2% of public SFAs used a foodservice management company.¹⁹ Another nationally representative survey conducted by USDA found a foodservice management company usage rate of 19.7% among public SFAs in school year 2014-2015. This survey also found that foodservice management company use was higher among larger school districts, urban and suburban districts, districts with lower poverty rates, and districts in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest.²⁰

Data indicate that the rate of school foodservice outsourcing has increased over time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) School Health Policies and Practices Study found an increase in the percentage of public school districts that reported using foodservice management companies from school year 2011-2012 (16.4%) to 2015-2016 (19.9%).²¹ Older data reported by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed a foodservice management company usage rate of 4% in school year 1987-1988 and 8% in school year 1994-1995 among all public and private SFAs.²² These rates are shown in Table 2.

There is limited research examining the shift to higher rates of outsourcing within school foodservice departments and the implications for employees (the latter topic is discussed briefly in the "Existing Research on the School Foodservice Workforce" section). USDA started allowing the use of foodservice management companies in 1970 in response to school meal budget shortfalls, among other factors.²³ It is unclear what has driven the rise in usage since then. Among public SFAs that contracted with foodservice management companies in school year 2016-2017, common reasons included perceived cost savings as a result of increased purchasing power, reductions in administrative burdens (including in overseeing staff), and improved compliance with federal and state regulations.²⁴ A study conducted in 2014 found that the top benefits of outsourcing cited by school administrators included access to skills and talent, quality improvement, quality of taste, nutritional quality of food, and reduced operating costs, and the top costs included poor performance, lack of student/parent support, poor contract/partner selection, unrealized savings/hidden costs, and low morale of staff.²⁵

Who Covers School Foodservice Labor Costs?

Nearly all school nutrition staff are paid out of the school district's foodservice budget as opposed to the district's general fund.²⁶ Keeping school foodservice accounts separate helps federally funded programs maintain compliance with federal regulations that govern school meal funds.²⁷ It also reflects an ethos that school foodservice operations be self-sustaining, which dates back to the inception of school feeding programs (discussed in the Appendix). However, the school district general fund may cover or partially cover certain costs, such as cafeteria utilities and custodial services, and foodservice losses.²⁸

School districts' foodservice budgets are funded largely by federal reimbursements for meals and student payments for meals and snacks (see Figure 1).²⁹ As such, school foodservice worker wages, benefits, and employment prospects are typically more dependent on federal funding and student purchases than state, local, and district budgets. Federal funding for school meals is calculated on a per-meal reimbursement basis. Therefore, funding is subject to fluctuations in student participation in school meals. The textbox "SFA Finances and Staffing During the COVID-19 Pandemic" (below) provides examples of how changes in meal participation during the COVID-19 pandemic, among many other factors, affected federal funding, school food authority finances, and staff.

Figure 1. School Food Authority (SFA) Revenue by Source, School Year 2014-2015

Source: CRS based on USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 3: School Meal Costs and Revenues, April 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study. Notes: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Salaries and benefits comprise a sizeable portion of school foodservice spending. A survey by the SNA of more than 1,000 of its member districts in fall 2019 found that, on average, half of districts' school nutrition budgets were spent on salaries and benefits.³⁰ Similarly, in a nationally representative survey of SFAs in school year 2014-2015, USDA found that labor costs represented 45% of the average foodservice account spending (tied with food costs as the category with the highest expenditures).³¹ About 80% of these labor costs were spent on the labor involved in meal production and service, and 20% of the costs were for "administration of school meal programs and other non-production activities to support school meals, such as cleaning and maintenance of kitchens, warehousing, and transportation costs."³² Like other school district employees, foodservice personnel salaries may be subject to district-wide pay scales or caps.³³

Applicable Federal Laws and Policies

Federal Workplace Protections

In addition to labor protections and standards that may be provided under state and local labor laws, many school foodservice workers are protected by federal laws and programs that govern employment relationships.⁴² These include the following:

• The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which entitles most covered workers to a federal minimum hourly wage (currently $7.25 per hour) or an applicable state or local minimum wage if that wage is higher than the federal minimum wage. More than half of the states currently have minimum wage rates for FLSA-covered workers that are above the federal rate.⁴³ The FLSA also requires additional payment for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek for some workers covered by the act. Such workers must be compensated at one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek.⁴⁴
• The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which entitles eligible employees to unpaid, job-protected leave for qualifying family and medical reasons. Eligibility for FMLA benefits is tied to an individual's work history with a covered employer.⁴⁵ Private sector employers are covered by FMLA requirements if they have at least 50 employees and certain conditions are met. All public agencies (i.e., federal, state, and local governments) covered by the act are covered employers regardless of employment levels.
• The federal-state Unemployment Compensation (UC) program, which is the cornerstone of the income support for unemployed workers and is generally financed by employer taxes.⁴⁶ Whereas the specifics of UC benefits are determined by each state, generally eligibility is based on attaining qualifying wages and employment in covered work. Federal UC law allows states to deny workers unemployment benefits between school terms.⁴⁷

Whereas the above-noted federal laws can apply to foodservice workers employed by public or private schools (or by a foodservice management company), some federal labor laws explicitly exclude public sector employees from coverage. For example, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which guarantees employees the right to organize and bargain collectively over conditions of employment and protects them against unfair employer and union activities, does not cover public-sector employees (i.e., employees of state, federal, and local governments and their subdivisions, including local educational agencies), among other groups. The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), which provides health and safety standards for workplaces, excludes state and local government entities (generally including local educational agencies) from the set of employers subject to federal regulations, inspections, or enforcement authorized by the act.⁴⁸ Private schools are considered employers under the OSH Act and are subject to federal jurisdiction, as are some charter schools, depending on their administrative structure and governance.

Voluntary Employer-Provided Benefits

Beyond federally mandated workplace protections and standards, some employers voluntarily provide workplace benefits to their employees. Table 3 presents Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data that describe workers' access to a selection of employer-provided benefits. Rates for all workers (all occupations) and service occupation workers who are employed in private sector establishments or employed by state and local governments (including local educational agencies) are presented separately. (BLS does not publish rates for school foodservice workers specifically.) Notably, workers employed by state and local governments have higher rates of access than private sector employees to the employer-provided benefits included in the table. And, while workers in service jobs in both sectors have lower access to health benefits, retirement benefits, and paid sick leave than do workers overall, the differentials are markedly smaller for service workers employed by state and local governments (except in the case of child care benefits). To the extent that such trends hold for school foodservice workers, it may be the case that public school employment is associated with better benefits than employment in private schools or employment by a foodservice management company.⁴⁹

School Meals Program Laws and Policies

There are minimal references to school foodservice employees in the school meals programs' authorizing laws and regulations. As noted earlier, federal regulations and guidance allow SFAs to use federal meal reimbursements to cover school foodservice labor costs, including salaries and benefits.⁵⁰ Other policies in statute and regulations establish hiring standards and training requirements and provide funding for training for school foodservice staff (discussed below).

Hiring Standards and Training Requirements

Federal hiring standards and training requirements for school nutrition professionals were added to Section 7(g) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296).⁵¹ Specifically, the HHFKA required USDA to establish minimum educational and training/certification requirements for school nutrition directors and annual training/certification for all school nutrition personnel, including outsourced employees.

USDA published a final rule in March 2015 adopting different hiring standards for school nutrition directors in differently sized school districts, which became effective in school year 2015-2016.⁵² In response to hiring challenges voiced by smaller school districts, a subsequent rule by USDA loosened the requirements for small districts (effective April 30, 2019).⁵³ In general, the hiring requirements increase with district size. School nutrition director hires in small districts must have at least a high school diploma or the equivalent; in midsize districts, they must have an associate's or bachelor's degree; and in large school districts, they must have a bachelor's degree. A major in specific nutrition-related fields is typically required but may be substituted with relevant experience or certifications in some cases.⁵⁴

In terms of training and certification, the March 2015 final rule established 12 hours of required annual training for school nutrition directors and 10 hours of annual training for school nutrition program managers in specified topics starting in school year 2016-2017.⁵⁵ For other types of staff who work more than 20 hours per week, six hours of annual training are required; for staff who work less than 20 hours per week, four hours are required. Temporary staff, substitutes, and volunteers are also required to complete some training within 30 days of starting work. School nutrition staff may complete some or all of their required training through federally funded resources, such as the Institute of Child Nutrition (discussed in the next section) and virtual USDA-provided trainings (e.g., in food safety).⁵⁶

Each year, SFAs must document and certify that all staff have completed the annual training requirements.⁵⁷ State agencies oversee compliance with the hiring and training requirements as part of their cyclical reviews of SFAs.⁵⁸

The HHFKA provided mandatory funding of $5 million in FY2011 and $1 million annually thereafter to implement the hiring and training requirements. The March 2015 final rule also specified that SFAs may use federal meal reimbursements to cover training costs, but not the cost of obtaining college credits.

Federal Funding for Training

School meal reimbursements may be used for labor costs, including training costs. There are also two specific initiatives that support training for school foodservice professionals:

• Institute of Child Nutrition: Section 21 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act authorizes and provides annual mandatory funding ($5 million) for a foodservice management institute with the purpose of providing training and technical assistance to improve the skills of school foodservice personnel. Since the institute's authorization in 1989, USDA has awarded funds to the University of Mississippi to operate it.⁵⁹ The institute provides online training for free and in-person training "at little or no cost" to SFAs.⁶⁰
• Team Nutrition: Section 19 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 authorizes funding for USDA and states to carry out activities and training related to nutrition promotion.⁶¹ With discretionary annual appropriations ($18 million in FY2022), USDA has provided grants to states in certain years to carry out nutrition initiatives.⁶² Some of these initiatives have included training for school foodservice staff. For example, USDA awarded grants to 11 states in FY2017 for programs aimed at supporting the implementation of updated nutrition standards for meals and snacks, including training for school food professionals such as culinary training and training on compliance with nutrition standards.⁶³

Existing Research on the School Foodservice Workforce

To date, little research has examined school nutrition workers: who they are, their education and skills, and their economic standing. Available studies use older data or focus on specific segments of the workforce (e.g., cafeteria workers). This past research indicates that frontline cafeteria workers are predominantly female and have lower compensation and educational attainment than the workforce as a whole. In contrast, school nutrition directors and administrators tend to have higher educational levels and salaries. Topics that have received less attention in the school foodservice workforce research literature include seasonal changes in employment, whether such workers are paid for required training, and professional development/upward mobility opportunities.

This section recaps the existing research on school foodservice employees' characteristics and labor market outcomes. The next section ("Describing the School Foodservice Workforce Using National Survey Data") presents ACS data from 2015 to 2019 on the labor force.

Demographics

Prior research on the demographics of the school foodservice workforce is limited. However, there are some historical data. For example, a 2010 study examined the workforce characteristics of school cafeteria workers (specific occupations were not defined in the study) using national ACS data from 2008.⁶⁴ The study found that school cafeteria workers were relatively older, with a median age of 47 compared to the median age of 40 for the American labor force as a whole. Ninety-three percent of cafeteria workers were female, which was nearly double the rate of female workers nationally (47%) the same year. Cafeteria employees were also more likely to be married and have dependent children living at home.⁶⁵ Racial demographics of cafeteria employees generally mirrored that of the workforce as a whole.⁶⁶

Education and Credentials

Prior studies have also shed light on educational attainment among particular segments of the school food workforce. The aforementioned 2010 study found that the most common level of education for school cafeteria workers was completion of a high school diploma (54%). Such workers were less likely than the general workforce to have completed some college (21% vs. 31%) or a bachelor's degree (3% vs. 30%).⁶⁷

A few studies have examined educational attainment among school nutrition directors specifically. One USDA study surveyed educational attainment among SFA directors prior to the implementation of the HHFKA hiring standards (discussed previously in the "Hiring Standards and Training Requirements" section). It found that 12% of SFA directors had advanced degrees, 29% had bachelor's degrees, 13% had associate's degrees, 20% had some college but no degree, and 26% had high school diplomas. Directors at larger SFAs had higher levels of educational attainment.⁶⁸ Another survey by SNA collected information on educational attainment for several districtwide positions in fall 2019. The survey found that, of 978 responding school nutrition directors, 23% had master's degrees, 45% had bachelor's degrees, 14% had vocational or technical degrees, 12% had some college but no degree, and 7% had a high school diploma.⁶⁹

USDA's study of school meal programs in school year 2014-2015 also measured certifications among school nutrition directors. The study found that 58% of SFA directors had food safety certifications. Other credentials included state foodservice or health department certifications, various SNA certifications, and dietician or nutritionist licenses. However, none of these credentials were held by more than 20% of SFA directors. Twenty-three percent of directors had no certifications.⁷⁰

Some qualitative research has suggested that disparities in educational attainment between frontline workers and managers could present difficulties for the former in progressing through the career ladder to management.⁷¹

Labor Market Outcomes

Wages and Salaries

The SNA survey in fall 2019 reported median salaries or hourly wages for various school and district positions, ranging from dishwashers to school nutrition directors.⁷² Median salaries or hourly wages for selected positions are shown in the table below.

The aforementioned 2010 study found a median hourly wage of $10.45 in 2008 for frontline cafeteria workers.⁷³ This was about 59% of the 2008 median hourly wage for all American workers ($17.58). The study estimated that the median cafeteria worker—who worked 25 hours per week and 40 weeks per year—earned $9,300 annually in 2008. The study also found that cafeteria workers were more likely than workers as a whole to live in poverty and to participate in public programs such as Medicaid.⁷⁴

Full- and Part-Time Status and Benefits

Part-time work is common among school foodservice workers. The SNA survey found that part-time workers comprised roughly 40% of the school nutrition workforce in responding school districts as of school year 2019-2020. It also found that the definitions of full-time and part-time were not consistent across school districts. On average, districts required 30 hours of work per week to qualify an employee for full-time status; however, the requirement was as low as 10 hours in some districts and as high as 40 hours in other districts.⁷⁵

Part-time school nutrition staff were much less likely to be eligible for benefits such as health insurance and retirement/pension plans compared to full-time workers. Nearly all responding districts offered health insurance to full-time staff; 28% offered it to part-time staff. The majority of districts also reported offering dental insurance, life insurance, and long-term disability insurance to full-time staff, while less than a quarter offered these benefits to part-time staff.⁷⁶ In terms of benefit cost to workers, there is some evidence that benefits constitute a higher proportion of compensation for "blue collar" school employees, including foodservice workers, than for "white collar" employees, such as teachers.⁷⁷

Other Labor Dynamics and Issues

Seasonal changes in employment are a common dynamic in the school foodservice industry.⁷⁸ The volume of school meals provided in the summer is much lower than during the school year, causing a lower demand for labor.⁷⁹ However, some school foodservice employees transition to working for federally-supported summer meals programs during the summer months.⁸⁰

Unionization is a less common dynamic in the school foodservice workforce. In its fall 2019 survey, SNA reported 13.1% union membership among school nutrition management; 29.4% among full-time, non-management workers; and 27.9% among part-time, non-management workers.⁸¹ More generally, union membership for employees working in foodservice and preparation (not specific to schools) was 3.5% in 2021.⁸² There is not a dedicated union for school foodservice workers.⁸³ However, cafeteria workers in some districts are represented by unions oriented towards service workers such as UNITE HERE or the Service Employees International Union.

As discussed in this report (see the "Outsourcing" section), an increasing proportion of school districts have outsourced their foodservice operations. There is limited research on the effects of outsourcing on school nutrition employees. In the public sector broadly, studies have shown that outsourcing can lead to the conversion of positions from full-time to part-time, which sometimes leads to a reduction in benefits.⁸⁴

Another unique aspect of the frontline cafeteria workforce in particular is the caretaking aspect of the profession. Qualitative research has found that for some workers, the emotional investment in the children they serve can be a source of both exhaustion and fulfillment.⁸⁵

Describing the School Foodservice Workforce Using National Survey Data

This section uses data from the American Community Survey, a large-scale nationally representative household survey, to describe the personal, family, and work characteristics of selected food preparation, serving, and supervisory workers employed in public elementary and secondary schools.⁸⁶ Due to limitations of the ACS data, some school foodservice workers, such as administrative staff and certain leadership positions, are excluded from analysis. Worker characteristics are also compared to those in other foodservice and related worker groups.

The analysis in this section is similar to that included in the 2010 study described in the previous section.⁸⁷ However, in addition to using more-current data, this section presents the groups (occupations) of school foodservice workers studied. As a result, some findings between the 2010 analysis and current analysis may differ.

Data and Approach

Analysis in this section is based on pooled ACS data collected over the 2015-2019 period (five years of data).⁸⁸ In addition to demographic data (e.g., age, sex, race, educational attainment), ACS data contain information on employment (e.g., employment status, occupation, industry, usual weekly hours and annual weeks of work, annual earnings), and family characteristics (e.g., family income, poverty status, family size). ACS data are collected monthly and then combined to form annual data (i.e., each year of data contains information from 12 monthly independent samples).⁸⁹

The ACS collects detailed information from a relatively large sample; its public use files contain data from about 1% of the U.S. population in each survey year. This is an advantage when examining relatively small worker groups, such as public sector school foodservice workers, but ACS data are not without limitations. For example, information is collected among employed workers only about the job worked at the time of the interview. This means that some school foodservice workers who are interviewed during the summer (when school foodservice employment is low) will not be identified in the data as part of the school foodservice workforce.⁹⁰ More broadly, the ACS cannot be used to study school foodservice workers' movement between jobs over the course of the year (e.g., in the summer or other times when school foods services are scaled down). ACS information on wage and salary earnings and annual weeks of employment describe earnings and employment for all jobs held in the 12 months that precede the survey interview. For this reason, ACS data cannot be used to characterize earnings from school foodservice jobs alone; the data instead describe annual earnings of foodservice workers across all jobs worked in the previous 12 months.⁹¹ Similarly, ACS data do not describe the time period of employment as a school foodservice worker; instead, the data describe the number of weeks a school foodservice worker was employed, summed across all jobs held in the last 12 months.

Sample

CRS used industry and occupation of work to identify workers employed in school foodservice jobs. Specifically, observations were restricted to workers employed in public sector elementary and secondary schools (industry) at the time of the survey in selected food preparation and service occupations.⁹² Within this group, the sample was limited to persons who were employed at the time of the survey, worked at least 27 weeks in the 12 months preceding the interview, usually worked at least five hours per week (in their current job), and reported earnings of at least $978.75 in the last 12 months.⁹³ This sample criteria was used to exclude workers with potentially weak labor force attachment (i.e., those employed less than half of the last year); applying these criteria reduces the unweighted sample by 8.7% (1,532 of 17,601 observations are excluded).

CRS observed that the characteristics of school foodservice workers tend to vary by specific occupation, and for this reason, this section also presents analysis that is disaggregated by selected occupations with at least 300 observations (over the pooled period).⁹⁴

Characteristics of Public School Foodservice Workers

Table 5 presents selected personal and employment characteristics of public school foodservice workers (column 2) and those of all workers (column 1; i.e., employed in any occupation or industry) interviewed between 2015 and 2019. (Additional comparisons of public sector foodservice workers to selected workers groups, including private-sector school foodservice employees, are in Table 8.)

School foodservice workers are overwhelmingly female (94%). Additionally, while the majority of these workers are White, they are disproportionately Black and Hispanic (when compared to the workers in all occupations and sectors [column 1]). On average, school foodservice workers are 50 years old (compared to an average age of 42 among workers overall) and have completed high school as their highest level of educational attainment (51%, compared to 24% among workers overall).

School foodservice workers worked, on average, about 32 hours per week, and most worked between 48 and 52 weeks in the 12 months preceding their survey interview. Annual earnings were relatively low (median earnings were $15,272 in the 12 months before the interview),⁹⁵ and about 16% reported receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. School foodservice workers had relatively high rates of health insurance coverage, but a higher share received coverage through public health insurance plans compared to workers in general.

Selected Occupations

Table 6 presents characteristics of workers employed in selected public school foodservice occupations and illustrates some differences across workers within the sector. The table shows, for example, that school foodservice managers were more likely to be married, White, male, and hold a bachelor's degree than workers in some other occupations. Dieticians and nutritionists were also more likely to have a bachelor's degree than other types of workers.⁹⁶ Cafeteria attendants and servers were more likely than workers in other occupations to be Black, and attendants/servers and food preparation workers were more likely to be Hispanic. Usual weekly work hours were lower for those preparing and serving food in school cafeterias than those in managerial or supervisory roles. Annual earnings were also higher for supervisors and managers than other foodservice workers. Cooks and food preparation and service workers were more likely to have family incomes within 200% of federal poverty guidelines and to report receipt of SNAP benefits. And, while health insurance coverage was over 90% for all occupation groups, managers and supervisors were more likely to have insurance through their employer or union, while workers in other occupation groups have had higher rates of public insurance.

Usual Work Schedules (Part-Time and Full-Time Workers)

Table 7 presents selected work and resource characteristics for public sector school foodservice workers, by part-time (defined as 5-29 hours per week) and full-time (defined as 30 hours or more per week) work schedules.⁹⁷ Overall, full-time workers were more likely to work full-year (48-52 weeks), have higher annual earnings, and have health insurance coverage through an employer or union.

Comparison of Public and Private Sector Foodservice Worker Groups

Table 8 compares selected characteristics of public sector elementary and secondary school foodservice workers (column 6) to all public sector workers (column 1), all foodservice workers (column 2), foodservice workers employed in the private sector (column 3), private sector elementary and secondary school foodservice workers (column 4), and public sector foodservice workers across all public sector industries (column 5). Note that private-sector school foodservice employees may work in both private and public schools (e.g., for a foodservice management company).

These comparisons show the following:

• Relative to all foodservice workers (column 2), school foodservice workers were more likely to be older, female, and Black.
• Both public and private sector school foodservice workers had relatively low usual weekly hours and had the lowest share of workers employed full year.
• Private and public sector school foodservice workers worked approximately 32 hours per week, on average, whereas foodservice workers overall (column 2) worked 35 hours per week and all public sector workers (column 1) worked, on average, 41 hours per week.
• 65% and 67% of public sector school foodservice workers and private sector school foodservice workers, respectively, were employed between 48 and 52 weeks in the last 12 months; rates of full-year employment ranged from about 74% to nearly 89% in the other comparison groups.
• Foodservice jobs (columns 2-6) had substantially lower earnings than all public sector workers (column 1); school foodservice workers had the lowest annual earnings of all groups included in the table.
• Public sector workers (columns 1, 5, 6) had relatively high rates of health insurance coverage. However, school foodservice workers, including those employed in public sector jobs, had relatively high rates of public health insurance coverage.

Appendix. Evolution of the School Foodservice Workforce

In some cities and localities across the United States, children were eating a school lunch as early as the late 1800s. These early school feeding initiatives were often started by women's associations, social welfare organizations, mothers, and teachers who were concerned about hunger and malnourishment and who fed children out of their homes or prepared meals offsite and brought them to schools.⁹⁸ They were run largely on a volunteer basis, sometimes collecting small fees from children.

By the 1920s and 1930s, these programs largely transitioned to being operated by schools and school districts.⁹⁹ Such programs were typically given a limited budget from the district and covered the remainder of their costs by charging children fees and/or soliciting private donations, and often secured approval to operate by promising to be self-sustaining enterprises.¹⁰⁰ Operation of the programs shifted to home economics graduates, who found school lunch service to be one of few fields receptive to women interested in the burgeoning field of nutrition science.¹⁰¹ These graduates were often White, middle-class women,¹⁰² some of whom promoted "scientific," standardized diets that ignored ethnic differences and preferences in food, and who pioneered the large-scale, low-cost production model that characterizes the school meal programs today.¹⁰³ Also involved were administrative staff, food preparation and serving staff, sometimes a professional dietician, and sometimes female students taking home economics classes.¹⁰⁴ Such staff included older women and women from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds, and some were volunteers.¹⁰⁵

The first federal funding for school lunches was provided specifically for labor costs during the Great Depression under New Deal agencies. In 1932 and 1933, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation granted loans to several towns in Missouri to cover school lunchroom labor costs.¹⁰⁶ Also in 1933, the Federal Emergency Relief Association provided funding to states for emergency relief, including to hire unemployed women in school lunchrooms, which resulted in the employment of an estimated 7,400 women.¹⁰⁷ In 1935, this support shifted to the Works Progress Administration, which eventually sponsored more than 64,000 school lunchroom jobs nationwide as of 1941. There were also 16,000 youths providing part-time help to school lunchrooms under the National Youth Administration that year.¹⁰⁸

The Works Progress Administration was disbanded in 1943, and federal support for school lunches shifted to annual appropriations that provided reimbursement for meals, which initially "could be used only to purchase food and to pay for professional nutritionists," not to "pay salaries for lunchroom labor."¹⁰⁹ Some states stretched their dollars by hiring one nutritionist to cover the whole state.¹¹⁰ Federal funding was made permanent in the National School Lunch Act in 1946, which did not include restrictions on the types of labor costs that could be covered. However, there were no specific funds provided for labor or training costs, and as is the case today, labor costs were one of many competing uses of meal reimbursement funding.

Under the new law, school nutrition professionals also had a growing list of responsibilities, including compliance with federal regulations and developing processes through which children qualified for free lunches.¹¹¹ Men graduating from business and management programs increasingly displaced female home economists in school foodservice director roles (a gender shift similar to other occupations in the post-World War II era), which would become a long-term trend.¹¹² School cooks and frontline foodservice staff were often mothers who worked part-time jobs, and data showed they were paid lower wages compared to other foodservice industry workers.¹¹³ In the 1940s through the 1960s, school lunch programs were most likely to operate in suburban, rural, and predominantly White school districts, in part because the National School Lunch Act required local financial capacity to cover matching funds, upfront costs prior to receiving federal reimbursement, and cafeteria equipment not covered by federal funding.¹¹⁴

Reforms in the 1960s and 1970s led to broader participation in the National School Lunch Program and the new School Breakfast Program. However, additional federal funds provided on the basis of need could not be used for labor costs, reinforcing disparities between poorer and wealthier school districts.¹¹⁵ An increase to the federal minimum wage led to higher wages for frontline staff, but a shift to reheating and serving pre-processed meals concurrently enabled districts to cut labor costs, particularly school cook positions. The 1970s saw the legalization of outsourcing in the programs as well as debates over unionizing school foodservice workers, which occurred at a slower pace compared to other industries.¹¹⁶ Data showed that school foodservice staff were paid less than teachers, bus drivers, and custodians, and were less likely to have full-time positions.¹¹⁷

As the federal government started enforcing a requirement that free meals be served to eligible children, districts raised meal fees for other children. This led to a decline in paid meal participation and student payments for meals. In addition, in 1981 the federal government cut $1.4 billion (roughly one-quarter) of the school meal program budget. In a tight financial situation, many districts cut costs by spending less on meal quality and by contracting with foodservice management companies and fast food restaurants, which displaced some school foodservice workers.¹¹⁸ Schools and districts that retained control over their foodservice operations increasingly relied on pre-processed foods, which meant that school kitchens did not need to work with raw ingredients as often as they used to, and some jobs shifted to private food processors.¹¹⁹

The trend toward outsourcing school foodservice operations continued from the late 1980s to the present, as discussed earlier in this report. However, the majority (approximately 75%) of districts still operate their own meal service. There has also been a movement toward serving healthier meals and—among some schools and districts—more scratch cooking. This has been supported by federal funding for school nutrition staff training since 1989 (discussed in the "Federal Funding for Training" section). Additional funding for school cafeteria equipment grants since 2010 has enabled more cooking in school and district kitchens. The federal government has also provided funding for farm-to-school programs. Schools and districts cooking from scratch still frequently rely on some pre-processed ingredients (e.g., shredded carrots), but they avoid frozen meals and box mixes. In addition, central kitchens—which are operated by districts and deliver meals to schools—have become increasingly common. This has shifted some food preparation jobs from schools to districts. Also, private-sector chefs have moved into school nutrition director positions in some districts.¹²⁰ All school foodservice staff—including food preparation, administrative, and frontline cafeteria workers—have had to adapt to new program requirements that were implemented following enactment of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296), including updated nutrition standards for school meals, as well as changes to meal program operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹²¹

As discussed previously in this report, there has been limited research on the school nutrition workforce and the impact of federal policies on this workforce over time. While initially limited to spending on nutritionists, federal funding for school meals has supported various types of school foodservice staff since 1946. Other reforms to the programs have resulted in the transfer of some school foodservice jobs to private industry and shifted roles for staff as the extent of cooking in school and district kitchens has changed. School nutrition employees' work experiences and labor market prospects have been and will likely continue to be affected by program trends and developments including federal funding levels and requirements, the degree of outsourcing within the programs, and the extent of cooking that takes place within school and district kitchens versus private sector facilities.