POSITION PAPER ON THE CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM OUTLOOK FOR 1971-72 ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE STATE DIRECTORS ON SATURDAY, August 7, 1971, AT THE POST-CONVENTION MEETING FOLLOWING THE 25TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION The State School Food Service Directors, a section of the American School Food Service Association, in a post-convention session in Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 7, 1971 wish to state its position concerning the Child Nutrition program outlook for 1971-72 as presented by Secretary Richard Lyng, Administrator Edward Hekman and other officials during the 1971 annual convention. The frame of reference for this position includes the following official pronouncements: 1. President Richard M. Nixon in December 1969 indicated his intent, which was reiterated May 14, 1970 at the signing of PL 91-248 to put an end to hunger among American school children, and 2. The Congress of the United States has pronounced that it also intended to put an end to hunger in America and which is noted in Section 9 of NSLA as amended by PL 91-248 which states "any child who is a member of a household that has an annual income not above the applicable family size income level shall be served meals free or at a reduced cost", as well as in Section 11 (a) which provides authorization for "appropriation as may be necessary" to assure access to the school lunch program under this Act by children of low-income families, and Section 11 (e) which provides that the amount of funds paid to a school shall be based on the need of the school for assistance in meeting the requirements concerning the service of lunches to children. In light of these pronouncements the State Directors, on behalf of their respective state are committed to fulfill the President's mandate to develop food service programs that would put an end to hunger among America's School Children. 1. Schools will be forced to eliminate Child Nutrition Programs. 2. There will be further hardships to America's economy through unemployment and cut-back in consumption of raw resources such as food and equipment. 3. Absenteeism, drop-outs and apathetic students will negate the benefits of the multi-billion dollar investment for public and private schools. 4. Finally, and most important, there will continue to be hungry children in America's schools!! ACTION MEMORANDUM AUGUST 19, 1971. To: State Directors. From: Mr. Lawrence Bartlett, Chairman, State Directors Section. Miss Josephine Martin, Chairman, ASFSA Legislative Committee. Subject: Proposed FNS Regulation Amendments. An ad hoc committee representing State Directors, Major City Directors and the American School Food Service Association met in Atlanta for the purpose of analyzing the proposed amendments to the current regulations and preparing recommendations and comments. The purpose of this analysis is (1) to provide bases for the attached letter to Mr. Herbert Rorex from your Section Chairman and Legislative Chairman and (2) to provide you with an analysis of the proposed amendments to the regulations as well as recommendations which would be helpful to you in preparing your letter to Mr. Rorex. TIME is of greatest essence. Every State has a big stake and big responsibility in getting the proposed amendments to the regulations changed before final publication. Please make your wants known before the deadline, August 28, 1971. Nothing short of mass effort on the part of the State Directors, Major City Directors, Chief State School Officers, State Legislative Chairmen and concerned citizens will stop this tide before AUGUST 28, 1971. All communications must be postmarked by this date. Will you: 1. Write Mr. Rorex expressing your thinking on this regulation? 2. Discuss the proposed regulation amendments with your Chief State School Officer, asking his support and even requesting that he, too, write Mr. Rorex? 3. Promote letters from the above named groups to Mr. Rorex? 4. Send copies of your letter to Mr. Rorex to your Senators and Congressmen? 5. Compare the total reimbursement you received in FY 71 with what you might have received with a 5¢ reimbursement for all meals and 30¢ reimbursement for free/reduced cost meals for your state or selected large districts and include this information in your letter to Mr. Rorex? (A copy of such comparison in Georgia is attached.) 6. Send copies of all correspondence to Louise Frolich in the Home Office? AUGUST 19, 1971. Mr. HERBERT R. ROREX, DEAR MR. ROREX: This in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, published August 13, 1971, in the Federal Register to amend the regulations governing the operations of Federal-State Child Nutrition Programs. We have some general comments to make on the proposed changes in existing regulations as well as specific comments and suggestions in individual sections. The major purpose of the proposed changes in regulations concerns the use of federal funds to carry out the mandatory provisions of Public Law 91-248 with respect to meeting the need for free and reduced price lunches for children qualifying under income standards established by the Department of Agriculture and the State Agencies. The real test, therefore, of the adequacy of the proposed new regulations is whether or not they will make it possible for the State Agencies and local school districts to meet the specific obligations and requirements which the Congress and the President has imposed by the approval of Public Law 91-248. After careful analysis and evaluation of the proposed changes, it is our considered judgment that they will not meet the basic test outlined above. We therefore urge that the attached revisions be made as recommended to the end that Congressional policy on meeting the nutritional needs of children from lowincome families can become a reality. In the event that the regulations are issued as presently proposed, we very strongly believe that the great progress achieved last year in reaching millions of additional needy children cannot be maintained and that the total goal of providing free or reduced price lunches to all needy children most certainly will not be met. Sincerely, LAWRENCE BARTLETT, Chairman, State Director's Section. (Miss) JOSEPHINE MARTIN, Chairman, ASFSA Legislative Committee. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON PROPOSED RULE MAKING 1. Section 210.4, new paragraph (f): A sum of $4,552,200 from Section 32 funds is reserved for the States of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. Such funds are available to these states for special cash assistance. We do not question the need of these states for the amount so reserved, but we do raise a question on why there is no similar reserve from Section 32 funds earmarked for the other states. 2. Section 210.4, new paragraph (f): (a) We object to the Establishment of a "base" system to control the distribution of funds to the states. Such a system would be cumbersome, time consuming, and difficult to administer. Given the unavoidable time lag in school lunch reporting, it would seriously delay the receipt of additional funds by the states in the latter part of the school year and even further complicate the financial problems encountered by local school districts last year due to late receipt of federal funds. (b) We agree in principle with the use of Section 32 funds for use as general cash assistance as indicated in the proposals. However, we believe that all states should share in these funds on an equitable basis taking into con sideration the need of the individual state as measured by per capita income, To do otherwise would be inconsistent with congressional intent as specified in the National School Lunch Act which provides a formula for the distribution of general-for-food assistance funds and would be further inconsistent with Section 210.4 of the present regulations. The proposed regulations as outlined will be detrimental to the states with low per capita income and the states that have been successful in providing lunches to a high percentage of children. It is estimated that 37 states will be seriously handicapped should this regulation become effective. We recommend that all states receive from Section 4 and/or Section 32 a sufficient apportionment to guarantee a minimum rate of 5¢ per Type A Lunch and where the state's assistance need rate is above 5¢ such states shall be guaranteed a rate per meal equal to the assistance need rate for that state as defined by USDA. (c) We object to the use of a base and the 30 cent maximum to control the use of Section 32 special assistance funds. We recommend that each state's apportionment from Sections 11 and 32 funds guarantee a rate of 40¢ for each free and reduced price meal served to eligible children. 3. Section 210.5, new paragraph (c): See our comments in 2(a) above on the use of a base system to control distribution of funds to the states. We recommend that Section 32 funds be initially allocated to states so that the total amount of Section 32 and Section 11 funds be equal to the amount of such funds expended by the states during the fiscal year 1971. Additional amounts would be paid to the states upon justification to assure an average rate of 40 cents per each free and reduced price meal. 4. Section 210.11, new paragraph (b−1): This amendment is appropriate. 5. Section 2.10.11, new paragraph (b–2): It is suggested that the base month to be used for determining needed adjustments in reimbusement rates be set as in October with need adjustments made on January 1. A review of funds status after receipt of January claims leaves little time to make adjustments in rates prior to the end of the school year. 6. Section 210.11, paragraph (c) revised: We very strongly object to setting the maximum rate for special assistance at 30 cents, especially when it must be considered in conjunction with the "base" system so that the state wide average rate for special assistance cannot exceed 30 cents for the full year. The impact of this provision will seriously indanger continuance of free and reduced price lunches to children who qualify. Many school districts would receive substantially less special assistance money this year as compared to last year. As one example, the City of Atlanta would suffer a loss of $238,000. Similar data is being developed for other areas and will be forwarded to you. We recommend the maximum rate be set at 40 cents as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee of State and Major City Directors in March 31-April 2, 1971. 7. Section 210.11, paragraph (d) revised: Specify 40¢ in lieu of 30¢ on line 2. Delete the remainder of sentence after the word "that" on line 3 and add "the school is financially unable to meet its need for free and reduced prices lunches." This sub-section sets up three criteria to be used in justifying rates of special assistance above 30 cents. The first criteria appears to mean that a higher rate is justified when production costs (labor, food, etc.) are "higher than is typical" in a given area. This is appropriate but does not accord special consideration to schools which have a large number or high percentage of free lunches and would suffer heavy losses in financing such lunches at the 30 cent maximum. We therefore recommend that the following words be inserted at the end of the first of these criteria: "or the percentage or absolute number of free or reduced price lunches is higher than is typical in the state." With respect to the second criteria we recommend the words "necessary operating" be inserted before the word "balance" and on the same line insert "as specified in Section 210.15" after the phrase "on hand". With respect to the third criteria, after the word cost, delete "cannot be eliminated by other remedial action" and substitute "is not the result of poor management practices." We would further recommend the sentence beginning with “Upon", line 9 be deleted and the following sentence be substituted-"Upon such a finding, the State Agency, or FNSRO where applicable, may assign a rate of reimbursement from special cash assistance and general cash assistance funds not to exceed 60¢ for each free and reduced price lunch served. Such rate should be reviewed and adjusted annually in accordance with cost of living changes." The rest of the paragraph be deleted down to "The State Agency-etc." 8. Section 210.11, new paragraph (d-1): This section must be clarified. Since it appears to mean the only funds proposed to be apportioned to State Agency at the beginning of the year will be the Section 11 funds; and consequently, rates would have to be assigned on basis of Section 11 funds only. We re-emphasize our recommendations for allocation of Section 32 funds to all states at the beginning of the year (see Section 210.5 (c) Page 2). 9. Section 210.11 new paragraph (d-2): We recommend here also that the month of October be used in place of January. 10. Section 210.11 paragraph (g) amended: No comments. 11. Station 102.14a: We recommend that after the first sentence of 210.14 (a) (1) the following sentence be inserted "USDA shall specify minimum staffing levels for each educational agency which would include skill and experience necessary for effective administration." 12. Section 220.16, paragraph (b) revised: We see no basis in the law or in fact for restricting the availability of equipment funds for schools already participating in the school lunch or breakfast program. To delay the approval of funds needed for equipment to serve additional needy children either lunch or breakfast until March 1 simply postpones this operation until the following fiscal year. We therefore recommend that this amendment be deleted. If this subsection is not deleted, we would recommend it be amended to require the equipment funds apportioned on the basis of the number of children in schools without food service be restricted to use in such schools. Funds not used shall be returned to USDA for reapportionment to other states in need of such funds. We also note the following objections: (a) the term "grossly inadequate" is vague; (b) requiring Washington's approval for expenditure of funds is inappropriate and inconsistent with Congressional intent and State autonomy; (c) requiring the States to work with individual schools rather than with School Food Authorities. 13. Effective date: Section 210.19 (b) state that "no change in the requirements for lunches which decreases the maximum rates of reimbursement shall become effective less than 60 days after publication thereof". Since the proposed amendments to 210.11 does in effect reduce the maximum rate of reimbursement for free and reduced price lunches, we raise a serious question that such amendments can be made effective September 1, 1971. We further protest the issuance of important new regulations without providing sufficient lead time to State Agencies and local school districts that will allow major changes of this nature to be put into effect in an orderly and efficient manner. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE UNIT COMPARISON-SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS [Lunch reimbursement at 1970-71 rates and at 5 and 30 cents, Aug. 17, 1971] DEAR MISS FROLICH: Enclosed is a copy of each of the letters I sent to Mr. Herbert Rorex and the Congressmen in regard to the amendments to P.L. 91-248. I feel very uninformed to be writing such letters but I'm learning. Sincerely, BELLE M. GRENIER, Colorado School Food Service Association. Hon. PETER H. DOMINICK, WHEAT RIDGE, COLO., August 27, 1971. DEAR SIR: I am enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Hubert Rorex, Director of the USDA Child Nutrition Division of the Food and Nutrition Service. We have studied the amended regulations governing the operation of the National School Lunch Program made by the Food and Nutrition Service. We urge you to become familiar with these proposed regulations and use the influence you have to help us continue to feed as many children as possible. We thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Mr. HERBERT D. ROREX, Director, Child Nutrition Division, BELLE M. GRENIER, Colorado School Food Service Association. WHEAT RIDGE, COLO., August 27, 1971. Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This is in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, published August 13, 1971 in the Federal Register, to amend the regulations governing the operations of the Federal-State Child Nutrition Programs. We think the proposed changes will not make it possible to carry-out the major purpose of the provisions of Public Law 91-248 with respect to meeting the need for free and reduced price lunches for children qualifying under income standards established by the Department of Agriculture and the Health Agencies. Establishing a "base" system to control the distribution of funds in the states would prevent the state directors from using the special fund money to the best advantage. Under the proposal, an increase in the amount paid to one of our districts would require a decrease in the amount paid to another district rather than giving the state director authority to use the fiscal money as it is needed. Why can't the Federal Grants for the Child Nutrition Programs be allocated before the school year begins? The month of January review of funds status leaves little time to make adjustments before the end of the school year. We recommend that a guarantee of 40¢ be made for each free and reduced price meal served to eligible children and a minimum of 5¢ per Type A lunch served. We urge that a common revision made by the American School Food Services Association Legislative Committee be made so Congressional policy on meeting the nutritional needs of children from low-income families may become a reality. Sincerely, BELLE M. GRENIER, Legislative Chairman, Colorado School Food Service Association. CONNECTICUT HARTFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, September 8, 1971. Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, DEAR SENATOR MCGOVERN: We are writing to vigorously protest the proposed U.S.D.A. change in funding guidelines, which, if adopted would result in a significant reduction in anticipated federal school lunch subsidies. The guideline changes, if adopted, will amount to a reduction per meal served of 17¢. Such a reduction in anticipated reveuue means that a shortage of cafeteria funds of: $255,000 for the school (1971-72) year |