The theme of American School Food Service Association is "Always The Child First." Will you use your influence to establish priorities on spending that reflect this theme, "Always The Child First." Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. ADDENDUM No. 1 FROM ALLEN A. ELLIOT, SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, NEBRASKA We have estimated the Omaha City Schools may lose nearly $450,000 of reimbursement due to the new USDA restrictions. If the price continues, they will lose another estimated half million dollars from the sale of lunches. They have also had to cancel consideration for opening two new lunch programs in low income schools. Other areas of Nebraska are being affected accordingly. FROM SEPTEMBER ISSUE, CONNECTICUT SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE NEWSLETTER Unless decisions are reversed before school opens, three school systems have cancelled the school lunch program for the coming year. (Note: The three school systems have 24,000 students-all closed because of deficits.) FROM MRS. ZELA FOX, PENNSYLVANIA DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL FUND SERVICE Philadelphia would have received $209,162.00 less in 1970-71 under the proposed spending formula. The average cost of a meal in Philadelphia is 57 cents. We expect the loss in Philadelphia in 1971-72 to be around $5 million as we will lose 22 cents on each of the 23.5 million lunches. FROM MRS. THELMA FLANAGAN, DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE, FLORIDA The allocation of breakfast funds to Florida is $40,000 less than last year. County school systems are projecting a need of one-half million dollars more; this means that we will lack $256,000 just to keep the 1970-71 program going. Senator MCGOVERN. Thank you very much, Miss Martin. I do want to commend you on another excellent statement before this committee. I must say, in all due respect to Secretary Lyng, I do not think you are confused at all about these regulations. I think your understanding is all too accurate of what they mean. I just want to ask you one question, just to make sure we understand the rest of your statement. Do you believe that it is possible to carry out the mandate of the Congress, to provide a free or reduced-priced lunch to every needy child, if these regulations are permitted to stand? REGULATIONS PROHIBIT CARRYING OUT MANDATE Miss MARTIN. I do not believe that we can possibly carry out the mandate under these regulations. Senator McGOVERN. I think the recommendation you made at the end of your statement, that the regulations be delayed, is in order. It is a request I have already made to the Secretary of Agriculture. And his reply was that they would be held up until at least today, until this hearing could be evaluated. But I am very hopeful that the regulations will be called off. Senator Hart? Senator HART. I just would like to thank Miss Martin for a very effective presentation. Senator Talmadge is a member of this committee and very sympathetic with the objective of reaching that target of feeding hungry American children. I know he would want me to express his appreciation to you. Miss MARTIN. Thank you. I had the privilege of chatting with Senator Talmadge last Wednesday in Atlanta, about this problem. Senator McGOVERN. Senator Cook? Senator Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Martin, in effect, what you are saying is that you have had no encouragement out of the Secretary's remarks before this committee at all, in relation to the formula or the latitude of the formula that he expected? Miss MARTIN. That is correct. Senator Cook. And you share the same concern that I share: That conceivably we may, for one of the few times, see a regulatory procedure which would prohibit the utilization of supplemental funds by reason of really regulating them out of utilization? Miss MARTIN. Yes, sir. As I read the regulations, I think there is an ambiguity there, that if one so chose to use it, that they could write supplemental funds out of utilization. Senator Cook. Thank you, Miss Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator McGOVERN. Thank you very much. The Select Committee is in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Select Committee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) APPENDIXES Appendix 1 COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CHAIRMAN CALIFORNIA HEALDSBURG SCHOOLS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, Healdsburg, Calif., August 11, 1971. Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, DEAR MR. MCGOVERN: I am writing to solicit your assistance on a matter of great importance to the Healdsburg School Districts, and to many other districts in California. The Department of Agriculture has changed the regulations for providing reduced price lunches to pupils in the elementary and secondary schools in a way that is very detrimental to the lunch program, and that will cause a great many problems in its administration. In the past the regulations provided for allowing a blanket reduction in the school lunch price if a preponderance of the students qualified for such a reduction. By taking advantage of this possibility, we were able to feed 150% more of our students in the hot lunch program than we had previously. However, this year we are informed that we may not establish a reduced price for all students, unless 100% of the students in the district qualify for such a reduction. Since approximately 80% of our students do qualify for such a reduction, we will have to process all of the applications individually, which is going to require a great deal of time. It is also going to reduce the number of children who will receive hot lunches, because many parents will not apply who do qualify because they will have to provide family financial information. It will cause resentment on the part of borderline parents who may be denied services. The Healdsburg area is one of extreme economic depression, with an unemployment rate in excess of 15%. We need all of the help that is available. Since the hot lunch program has been of such great benefit to our students, can we enlist your assistance in requesting the Department of Agriculture to rescind the new regulation and restore the capability of providing an across-theboard reduction in lunch prices for students in poverty level districts. Healdsburg has a 30% Mexican-American minority, 28% of our students are on AFDC rolls, we have 10% of our students in foster homes, and many other low income families not included in those above. These people do not understand what appears to them to be capricious bureaucratic changes in regulations. They blame the local school administrator when things of this nature occur. Please help us to help them. Sincerely yours, JOHN S. KATELEY, Assistant Superintendent. (1795) Mr. EDWARD J. HEKMAN, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HEKMAN: My letter of August 23 regarding proposed amendments to National School Lunch Program regulations should be amended as follows: I support the principle of guaranteed minimum average rates of reimbursement included in Section 210.4 (f). However, the minimum rates are far too low. In order to really expand the National School Lunch Program and to reach more needy children, an average minimum rate of .12 should be established for Section 4 funds and an average minimum rate of 40 should be established for Section 11 funds. To provide less reimbursement means that local school districts must provide from .10 to .15 per lunch for free lunches served to needy pupils and many districts simply cannot fund this cost. Sincerely, JAMES M. HEMPHILL, Chief, Bureau of Food Services. AUGUST 23, 1971. Mr. EDWARD J. HEKMAN, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HEKMAN: Dr. Riles has asked me to comment regarding the proposed amendments to the National School Lunch Program regulations. 210.4(f) I understand this section to mean that the Section 4 funds initially apportioned to each state, divided by .05, will establish a participation base. Lunches served in addition to this base will be reimbursed at .05 each from Section 32 funds. The same principle will be applied to free and reduced price lunches at a .30 rate. This procedure is great and will allow states to expand programs with the assurance that funds at .05 and .30 rates are guaranteed. It will also enable the Department of Agriculture to control Section 32 funds and to allocate them on the basis of demonstrated need. 210.11 (b-1) I understand this section to mean that states shall estimate total participation for 1971-72 and then establish a Section 4 rate based on the initial allocation of Section 4 funds. This procedure would be disastrous and clearly is in conflict with Section 210.4(f). If a state anticipated doubling participation in 1971-72 it might have to establish a rate of .02 per lunch. Such a rate established at the beginning of the school year net only would prohibit program expansion but would cause many schools to drop out of the National School Lunch Program. I repeat that this procedure would be disastrous. In my opinion Section 210.11 (b-1) is unnecessary because Section 210.4 (f) already limits average reimbursement to .05 under Section 4 funds and to .30 under Section 11 funds. If Section 210.11 (b-1) remains, it should be clearly qualified to establish average rates of .05 and .30 per lunch. 210.11 (d) This section is far too complicated. I do not see how a state agency can authorize special assistance beyond .30 per lunch with all these conditions and restrictions. I believe that discretion should be left entirely to the state agency for determining need of special assistance reimbursement beyond .30 per lunch. The state agency will have to balance increases beyond .30 with decreases below .30 in order to stay within funding sources at an average rate of .30 per lunch. 210.4(f) I strongly recommend that the same procedures outlined in Section 210.4(f) be applied to the Breakfast Program, with an average rate of .15 per breakfast. Without this provision state agencies cannot be exposed to expand the breakfast program. On the basis of May's participation at a rate of .15 per breakfast, we project a need for 1971-72 breakfast Program funds in an amount of $1,592,000. Unless we are guaranteed this funding we cannot approve new breakfast pro grams and will have to terminate existing programs at about the middle of the school year. 210.11 (d-1) The same comments regarding Section 210.11 (b-1) apply to this section. It, too, would be disastrous. In summary, Section 210.4(f) is innovative and an excellent approach to program expansion. It should also be applied to the Breakfast Program. Sections 210.11 (b-1) and (d-1) are restrictive and actually regressive. Their application will result in a curtailment of the National School Lunch Program and of the furnishing of free and reduced price lunches to needy pupils. Sincerely, Senator George McGovern, Chairman, Senate Nutrition Committee, JAMES M. HEMPHILL, Chief, Bureau of Food Services. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., September 4, 1971. We are appealing for fuller funding of the special assistance provision of the National School Lunch program for needy children. The Sacramento city unified school district, one district of many in this county, is facing this situation : less than two weeks before the start of school and after adoption of the district budget, policy changes in the NSLP were announced, resulting in an anticipated loss of $28,000 in federal and state funding. If the district cannot cover this amount, the program for needy children may have to be curtailed. We urge all possible action to restore funds. MRS. A. J. KRISIK, Chairman, Sacramento Feeding Project Committee. COLORADO AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION AUGUST 25, 1971. Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR MCGOVERN: We wish to call your attention to the impossible situation which will be created with the implementation of the proposed regulations for Child Nutrition Programs, Nonfood Assistance Program Funds and Eligibility Determination for Free and Reduced Price Lunches published Friday, 13, 1971 in the Federal Register. These regulations will indeed be a step backwards in the Child Nutrition Programs in America. The State Directors of School Food Service, at their post-convention meeting in Minneapolis, adopted unanimously the enclosed Position Paper. This Position Paper was based upon the presentation made by Assistant Secretary Richard Lyng at the Annual Meeting of the American School Food Service Association, August 4, 1971: An Ad Hoc committee composed of State Directors, Major City Directors and representatives from the American School Food Service Association met on August 18 to analyze the published regulations. A copy of the analysis sent to Mr. Herbert Rorex, Director, Child Nutrition Division, FNA, USDA is also attached. If the Child Nutrition Programs are to grow, or for that matter continue, at the present rate, the financial restriction the proposed regulations will impose upon the States must not be permitted. Your continued support and cooperation in the growth of the Child Nutrition Programs will be appreciated by the hungry children in America's schools. Sincerely, DR. JOHN PERRYMAN. |