Изображения страниц

The following questions were asked and the answers represent the totals for these 15 districts :

1. Q. How many school lunches do you estimate will be served this year? A. In the 15 districts, 17,556,000 meals will be served. 2. Q. How many needy children will be served this year compared to last year?

A. An estimated 47,490 needy children will be served this year in these districts. This represents an increase of 9,243 children over last year. The primary reason for this increase is because of the liberalized guidelines issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. In addition, some increase should be due to the fact that the program has been in operation for one year and increased publicity would bring in more applications.

3. Q. How much do you estimate total reimbursements will be decreased this year under the proposed funding compared to last year's total?

A. In these 15 districts a total decrease in funding will come to $610,000.

4. Q. Using May prices for food, what do you estimate each lunch will cost this year?

A. An average food cost for the 15 districts is $.45 for the current school year.

5. Q. How long do you estimate the district can continue the lunch program under the proposed funding?

A. Most of the 15 districts indicated that they could operate the program until December or January of the current school year. One district indicated that they thought they could "barely' complete the current school year, without any funds left with which to open the operation a year from this fall. The earliest termination dates given were December of 1971. These dates were given by Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

6. Q. If the lunch program ceases, where would the children eat or would they huve lunch:

A. The districts answered that the large number of needy children in their district would probably go without any lunch at all. They also said that provision of snack bars and a la carte service would provide some food service for those who could afford to buy. Most of the districts indicated that long bussing distances would make even the sack lunch impractical because of the long period which the lunch would have to sit in an unrefrigerated area before the noon hour period.

7. Q. If the lunch program ceases, how many employees would be affected?

A. In the 15 districts responding, there are 1,427 employees who would face unemployment and possibly return to welfare assistance in some form.

8. Q. If the lunch program ceases how will this affect the economy of your community?

A. The 15 districts answering this inquiry stated that the annual input into the local communities would amount to $7,076,543. This money then would be taken out of the community economies and would cause a severe threat to the stability of many businesses now depending upon this income.

Many further observations and conclusions could be drawn from the additional information provided by superintendents in their letters; however, the statistics given should indicate the gravity of this current situation.

It is obvious from the information given that school districts cannot possibly meet the $.45 food cost with a $.06 reimbursement from Section 4 and $.30 reimbursement from Section 11 and 32 monies.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you in considering further action to appeal for reconsideration of funding plans for the 1971-72 school year.


Washington, D.C., October 1, 1971. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write in support of your proposal, H.J. Res. 889, which is designed to assure that every needy school child receive a free or reduced-price lunch as required by section 9 of the National School Lunch Act. The Department of Agriculture's new regulations, proposed August 13, governing the national school lunch program, endanger Maryland's ability to meet the school lunch needs of its needy children. The all too likely consequence of these new regulations is that thousands of needy children in Maryland may go hungry despite Federal and State promises that they would have at least one good meal per day.

There can be little doubt of the need for your proposal. The August 13 regulations provide for the apportionment of funds available in 1972 for general and special cash assistance for school lunches in such a manner that each State would receive approximately 5 cents in general assistance for each lunch served and 30 additional cents in special assistance for each free or reduced-price lunch served. The combined 35¢ total for free and reduced-price lunches is less than many schools were receiving at the end of the last school year.

The national average cost per school lunch is estimated at 52.6 cents per meal, and I would note that in Baltimore the average cost per lunch is greater. Given the cost of producing these lunches, a reimbursement rate of 30 cents under section 11 for each free and reduced-price lunch is simply not adequate to assure that all needy children receive free or reduced-price lunches. The 40 cent figure proposed in your bill would certainly more nearly attain this goal.

Your proposal would also make it clear that Congress expects the funds provided in the resolution to be apportioned in that manner which will best enable schools to provide lunches to needy children and not in accordance with the section 11 formula. It would also require the funds to be apportioned and paid out as expeditiously as possible. Finally it would require the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on the need for additional funds for the fiscal 1972 school breakfast and non-food assistance programs.

Through your previous leadership, Congress has made an effort to provide an effective school lunch program capable of feeding every needy child. Due to increases in the size of the program, among other things, the funds available for fiscal 1972 are inadequate to provide sufficient reimbursement per meal to assure the program's continuation. This inadequacy has resulted despite the fact that Congress appropriated $33.8 million more than the Administration requested. Emergency action is now clearly needed.

HJ. Res. 889 would provide that action by drawing upon section 32 funds until the Appropriations Committee can begin work on a supplemental appropriation. A precedent for this kind of approach was established this summer when Congress enacted H.R. 5257, which also provided for the use of section 32 funds for free and reduced-price lunches.

Mr. Chairman, in May of last year, 349,010 children were participating in Maryland's school lunch program. The State served 14,533,800 free and reducedprice lunches. Today Maryland is serving 97,000 free and reduced-price lunches per day and the Maryland Food Committee predicts that that number could go far beyond 125,000 lunches per day. These thousands of needy Maryland children received a promise from the State and Federal Government that they would receive at least one nourishing meal per day. Your bill will make it possible for the Federal and State governments to keep their promise. I therefore strongly support your resolution and am anxious to cooperate with you in securing passage of this proposal by the House of Representatives. With best regards, Sincerely,



Wellsville, Ohio, October 7, 1971. Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I am writing in regards to bill H.J. Res. 889, which was recently passed by the Senate. This additional reimbursement for milk and needy lunches is needed very much to support our cafeteria program.

The additional revenue in equipment assistance should be approved. The Wellsville City Schools, at the present time, are building two new elementary buildings with new cafeterias. We were told that we would get federal assistance for equipment, but due to the fact that the equipment assistance was cut, it will be impossible to furnish these cafeterias. Your support in the passage of this measure will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours,

DONALD LOWE, Superintendent of Schools.


Dalton, Mass., October 6, 1971. Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN : We would like to persuade you and your sub-committee to act favorably on House Resolution 889 which calls for a reservation of proposed restricted regulation governing the appropriation of the National School Lunch Child Nutrition Program, and which would also provide additional monies for the purchasing of needed equipment for schools not now participating in the program.


Vice Principal


Marblehead, Mass., October, 7, 1971. Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: I am writing to urge you and your committee to act favorably on House Bill 889, which calls for a revision of present restricted regulations governing National School Lunch Programs which also provide for additional monies for the purchase of needed equipment for schools now not participating in the program.

The proper nutirition of children is essential to their education and well being
Thank you for your help and understanding in this matter.

ROBERT FILBIN, Superintendent of Schools


Minneapolis, Minn., October 9, 1971. Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI: The Minneapolis Council of PTA's being an organization primarily concerned with the welfare of children is concerned about the possible additional changes in the USDA guidelines for federal support of the school lunch programs. We are deeply concerned that the proposed eligibility changes in the regulations will eliminate many children, particularly AFDC children, from the free and reduced lunch program. That would mean approximately 15,000 children in Minneapolis alone would be affected by the change. We recognize the need of adequate nutrition in a child's physical and mental development.

The proposed regulations in the USDA's guidelines would be an additional financial burden to the Minneapolis Public Schools by making up a deficit based on last year's participation and reimbursement in the school lunch program. Sincerely yours,

Mrs. LAWRENCE Davis, Legislation Cochairman.


Dalton, Mass., October 6, 1971. Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee of Education, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We would like to persuade you and your sub-committee to act favorably on House Resolution 889 which calls for a reservation of proposed restricted regulation governing the appropriation of the National School Lunch Child Nutrition Program, and which would also provide additional monies for the purchasing of needed equipment for schools not now participating in the program.

JAMES F. FARMER, Business Manager.


Wellsville, Ohio, October 12, 1971. Ilon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PUCINSKI: I am writing in regards to HJR889 which contains a measure to increase the School Lunch Reimbursement from the present .04 (four) to .06 (six) cents. Also, it is my understanding that Section II increases the "needy" reimbursement from .30 (thirty) to .40 (forty) cents.

In a time when costs are rising our reimbursement for the lunch program has been decreasing. Last year, for instance, we were paid .34 cents from the State for each needy lunch served. This school year we are being reimbursed .30 cents for needy lunches served in our High School and .15 cents for needy lunches served in our Elementary School. Need I say that with rising food costs and increased labor costs that we need more money to operate and not less. Any help that you can give us in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours,

KEITH E. Nixon, Clerk-Treasurer.


Minneapolis, Minn., October 9, 1971. Congressman ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PUCINSKI: The changes in the federal support of school lunch programs has been very disturbing to the Minneapolis Council of P.T.A. Associations, Inc.

Since September 2, 1971, each school has had to change their regulations in collection of monies for the hot lunch programs twice. Now we understand a possible third change in the regulations is being considered. Each additional change has cost money in sending out information to parents about the new changes, not to mention the clerical time involved.

By increasing the eligibility limit to $4200, many Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in our target area schools will still be forced to pay the full amount or be forced to send “potato chips and candy bar" lunches with their children.

Just when the Minneapolis Public Schools are succeeding in their plans of providing a hot meal each noon hour for every child in Minneapolis, changes take effect which push the providing plans backward, instead of forward. It seems like help for other areas in the nation are taking effect, but our children are the last ones to receive it. Why is this so?

Please, Congressman Pucinski, help the Minneapolis administrators move forward in providing the children in our schools with “hot lunches". Sincerely,

Mrs. WILLIAM McCabe, President.

Corresponding Secretary.

MINNEAPOLIS, Winx., October 9, 1971. Mr. ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education. Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: I am writing to you because I am deeply concerned about the consequences of the additional proposed L'.S.D.A. regulations.

As a parent of six children and a member of the limeapolis School Lunch Committee. I am aware of the need and value of the hot lunch program for school students. The schools, citizens and the committee members have worked diligently to bring the hot lunch program to as many of the elementary schools requesting the program as the restricted school budget would allow. They developed immovations and shared ideas in setting up a successful lunch program in old and outdated school buildings. The community and parents actively assist in implementing the lunch program on a daily basis.

New interest and knowledge about food is shown by the children is teachers use the lunch program to teach good nutrition by first hand experience.

A factor not often mentioned in connection with having a lunch prograin it school is the safety factor. The dangers of children having to cross streets to out to lunch is eliminated by eating at schools. The lunch hour can also be shortened enabling an earlier dismissal time when traffic is not so bu. Tie Police Department has recorded the decrease in the school accident rate.

Many of these benefits to the student and the community will be gone with the harshness of the additional proposed regulations. One Principal of one of our inner city schools threw up his hands and said—“All the good will and community cooperation that I have worked years to build for our school is being destroyed by the excessive paperwork, having to take away lunches and bill parents for lunches they can't afford anymore this fall than they could last spring."

Nine other elemenetary schools in Minneapolis also want to start a hot lunch program this year but cannot do so because the school district will have an additional financial burden to maintain the current lunch programs if the proposed regulations are passed.

I sincerely urge you to consider the real needs for the lunches to the children as well as all salient benefits of a lunch program and oppose the U.S.D.A. proposed regulations that are contrary to the welfare of the children. Yours truly,

(Mrs. John A.) JOYCE H. JADSON.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., October 9, 1971. Representative Roman PUCINSKI, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: While I am not one of your constituents by reason of residence in your electoral district, I am in the broader sense a constituent in so far as the actions taken by your subcommittee on Education directly affect our children in a public target area school in Minneapolis. I am riting specifically in regard to new and proposed regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture relating to free and reduced cost school lunches and federal reimbursement to local school districts.

Our family does not qualify for either free or reduced lunch under either old or new guidelines, but we are very concerned about the effect of the regulations on our school district. Under Minnesota law, financing inner city schools at a level which would come anywhere near meeting the needs of the children attending these schools is very difficult. Federal monies have helped us, and we feel that the hot lunch program which we have had for about two and one-half years at our school has been crucial for improved child achievement.

I have been active for about six years in community “education-oriented" organizations (PTA, League of Women Voters, etc.) working to improve public school finance. We know that pressure on the education dollar in the big cities is intolerable, and for the federal government to contribute to this pressure by needless reductions in funds and expansion of paper work seems ironic to say the least. And it is hardly fair to effect government savings by penalizing the poorest segments of our population.

The Indian education bill recently passed by the Senate points up the problem. According to my arithmetic, this bill grants approximately $2,200 per eligible Indian child for improving his education. In 1970 Minneapolis had 1,993 Indian students (3% of total enrollment). These students were not eligible for JohnsonO'Malley funds and because most of them attend core area schools were eligible for reduced or free lunches. Now these students must make application and the district may be required to verify every application for free or reduced cost lunch. High absenteeism, much moving between schools and even moving back and forth between city and reservation will complicate the problem.

At the same time the funds received by the Minneapolis school district for the lunch program will be substantially reduced (by about $510,000 based on last year's participation and reimbursement). The state government will not pick up this expense, and at the same time our legislature is enacting legislation which will severely limit the amount the Minneapolis district may levy for schools. This can only mean that Minneapolis may well be forced to abandon the hot lunch

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »