Plainfield SD 202 reviews school meal participation under CEP and weighs keeping Aramark versus bringing meals in‑house

Plainfield School District 202 finance and operations staff reviewed school meal participation and finances and discussed whether to continue outsourcing food service to Aramark or to move to an in‑house program at an Oct. 15 committee meeting.

District staff told committee members the district expanded CEP coverage this year to 23 schools (up from 19 last year) so more students receive free breakfast and lunch. Despite that expansion, staff said participation has not increased as expected: reported participation rose to about 32% in 2024–25 after expansion but the district reported a decline to roughly 27% so far this year.

“We expanded the program, so we have all houses except the red house receiving CEP,” a district food‑service staff member summarized. The presenter said the district averaged about 16,770 meals served per day in 2024–25 and cited a missed‑opportunity estimate the district could have served roughly 1.2 million breakfasts and about 2.2 million lunches based on comparable CEP uptake elsewhere.

Costs, quality and options

District staff presented comparative cost estimates prepared with Illinois School Nutrition guidance. The in‑house cost per meal varied depending on menu assumptions; staff cited a range for in‑house breakfast of about $1.87–$2.27 and lunch of about $3.12–$3.27 per meal. For 2024–25, the district said Aramark’s average per‑meal charges were about $2.29 for breakfast and $3.27 for lunch. Staff said, on those math comparisons, an in‑house operation could be financially viable even using conservative (higher) in‑house cost assumptions. The district also noted that in‑house operation would require equipment, staffing and training investments.

Quality, training and equipment were recurring concerns. Multiple board members and staff said the current outsourced model relies heavily on reheated or prepackaged items and that moving to in‑house production would allow greater control over ingredients and menu quality. District staff said Aramark uses largely reheated items and that several of the district’s kitchen teams lack the training to prepare more from‑scratch menus without additional equipment and staffing supports.

Process and timeline

District leaders said they will bring a formal recommendation to the board in December. Staff outlined three possible paths: (1) issue a request for proposals (RFP) for providers, (2) bring the program in‑house, or (3) continue with the current vendor (Aramark) under a revised contract — and they said they would not recommend selecting the lowest bid without specifying performance standards. The district said it has asked Aramark to provide measurable performance targets and that, to date, Aramark’s suggested participation goal of 3% increase was viewed by staff as too low given the addition of more CEP schools.

Pilot and operational notes

Staff said a pilot (a phased, multi‑school rollout) could be possible but would require careful planning because the district has 31 sites with different kitchen configurations and satellite feeding logistics. Equipment and workforce are key variables; staff said some elementary kitchens had not been used for full production in years and would need upgrades and staff training to support from‑scratch cooking in volume.

Next steps

The committee asked staff to return in December with a recommendation for board action. Staff said they would continue to monitor daily participation trends, work with Aramark on short‑term performance steps and prepare cost and operational modeling for the three options.