$180,000 for the balance of this fiscal year

At present, the Board is now subsidizing the lunch program at a rate of $400,000 per year assuming there is no cutback in federal revenues. If the revenue cutback becomes a reality the Board would either be forced to increase its subsidy to $580,000 or stop feeding poverty children when the money runs out. We estimate that the Board's money would run out on or about December 15, 1971.

To date, the Board's anticipated 1971-72 fiscal deficit could run $1,000,000. (It should be noted that over $700,000 of this deficit projection has resulted from federal and state revenue cutbacks below current funding levels). Since the Board cannot legally operate with a budget shortage, the funds must be found somewhere. In all likelihood, this will mean that the Board would be required to stop the lunch program, as unpleasant as this alternative seems. We urge your support to restore funds to a minimum of 1970-71 levels. Please do everything in your power to persuade U.S.D.A. officials to change the disbursement guidelines.

If you need any additional information or assitance to help in this cause, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

MEDILL BAIR, Superintendent of Schools.

FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Tallahassee, August 27, 1971.

To: Herbert D. Rorex, Director, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The State Directors of the Southeast Region, in session in Atlanta for the USDA Regional Conference August 25, 1971, reacted to the proposed regulations pertaining to the Child Nutrition Programs.

The group endorses the recommendations of the American School Food Service Association Ad Hoc Committee, relating to the proposed regulations with one exception.

We recommend that Section 210.11 b.1 be revised. This section needs clarification. It appears that the only funds proposed to be apportioned for General Cash for Food Assistance are Section 4 funds, and consequently rates would have to be assigned on basis of Section 4 funds only. This negates the desire of the USDA to assure an average of 5¢ per meal, as indicated in the proposed regulation. Attached is a copy of the ASFSA Ad Hoc Committee report, and a copy of specific recommendations relating to other regulations is attached.

SOUTHEAST REGION SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE DIRECTORS

Thelma G. Flanagan, Florida, Chairman; Roy T. Alverson, Alabama; Josephine Martin, Georgia; Cephus E. Bevins, Kentucky; John Walker, Mississippi; Ralph Eaton, North Carolina; Kathleen Gaston, South Carolina; Larry Bartlett, Tennessee; John Miller, Virginia; Sylvia Perez, Puerto Rico.

Selected Congressmen: Allen, Alabama; Hollings, South Carolina; Chiles, Florida; Perkins, Kentucky; Talmadge, Georgia; Whitten, Mississippi. Southeast Regional State Directors: McGovern, Percy.

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 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 on 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 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 revisions be made as recommended below to the end that Congressional policy on meeting the nutritional needs of children from low-income 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.

Comments and Suggestions

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 use of 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 consideration 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 cents maximum to control the use of Section 32 special assistance funds, and we recommend that each state's apportionment from Section 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 210.11, new paragraph (b-2): It is suggested that the base month to be used for determining needed adjustments in reimbursement rates be 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 endanger 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", and add "in lieu of" the school is financially unable to meet its need for free and reduced price lunches.

This sub-section sets up three criteria to be used in justifying rates of special assistance above 30 cents. The first 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 provision 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 cents 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 word "hand."

With respect to criteria three, 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 in (3) beginning with "upon" 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 ni accordance with cost of living changes." The rest of the paragraph 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.

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. Section 210.14a: We recommend that after the first sentence of 210.14a.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. We note the following objections: (a) the term "grossly inadequate" is vague, (b) this section requiring Washington's approval for expenditure of funds which is inappropriate and inconsistent with Congressional intent and the state autonomy, (c) the section requires the state to work with individual schools rather than school food authorities. We further recommend that this subsection be amended to require that equipment funds apportioned under the formula for the basis of the number of children in schools without food service be restricted to use in such schools, they shall be returned to USDA for reapportionment to other states in need for such funds. 13. Effective Date. Section 210.19 (b) states 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 im

58-854-71-pt. 7-5

portant new regulations without providing sufficient lead time for states and individual school districts, so that major changes of this nature can be put into effect in an orderly and efficient manner.

ASFSA Ad Hoc Committee: Larry Bartlett, Chairman, State Directors Section; Josephine Martin, Chairman, Legislative Committee; Thelma G. Flanagan; Edward F. Gaidzik; Clarice Johns; Samuel C. Vanneman; Louise Frolich.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOUTHEAST REGION STATE SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE DIRECTORS (Adopted August 25, 1971, Southeast Regional Conference, Atlanta, Ga.)

At a meeting held on August 25, 1971, the southeast region state school food service directors discussed the current status and needs of school food service programs. The group adopted and proposes the following recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

1. We wholeheartedly endorse the following recommendation, adopted in New Orleans, March 6, 1971, at a meeting of southeast region Chief State School Officers and Food Service Directors:

"USDA make available to the State Educational Agency no later than May 1, 1971, and the same date in subsequent years all changes relating to records and reports, rates, regulations, instructions, and policy statements that will be applicable during the following fiscal year." We urge that it be followed, except where new laws mandate new regulations that cannot be delayed.

2. We further recommend that the USDA prepare regulations quickly to carry out the intent of PL 92-32, and that the Secretary make Section 32 funds available to the states for expanding school breakfasts in accordance with the intent of PL 92-32.

3. We regret that the following recommendation, also made at New Orleans, was not implemented by the USDA:

"That USDA convene the Advisory Committee . . . no later than April 1, to (1) develop guidelines for preparing state plans, and make such guides available to states by June 1. Guidelines should include requirements for the state plans to describe the detail action program the state proposes to undertake in expanding, improving, and coordinating the states' nutrition education activities. (2) the guidelines should contain provisions for amending state educational agency plans to justify the request for funds transfer."

We recommend that:

(a) A Task Force for preparing guidelines for state plans to be appointed and called together by September 1, and that the USDA provide guidelines to states by October 15.

(b) The Task Force should include a chief state school officer, a nutrition oriented individual, a finance officer from state department of education, a program planning specialist, and not less than three state school food service directors.

(c) Selection be made of six state plans (a sampling) and distributed to Task Force prior to meeting.

(d) Food and Nutrition Service Regional Office call a meeting of state directors immediately following issuance of guidelines (October 15) for interpretation and planning.

4. We further recommend that the USDA report actual meals served as reported by the states, and that the USDA discontinue their practice of applying ADA per cent to ADP, and that federal reports show average daily number of meals served children rather than using the adjusted figure which attempts to show the number of children reached. Such adjusted reports are misleading, confusing, and make it difficult for states to secure adequate state funds to support the programs.

SOUTHEAST REGION SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE DIRECTORS

Thelma G. Flanagan, Florida, Chairman; Roy T. Alverson, Alabama; Josephine Martin, Georgia; Cephus E. Bevins, Kentucky; John Walker, Mississippi; Ralph Eaton, North Carolina; Kathleen Gaston, South Carolina; Larry Bartlett, Tennessee; John Miller, Virginia; Sylvia Perez, Puerto Rico.

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLA., September 1, 1971. To: Hon. Lawton Chiles, U.S. Senator; Hon. Edward J. Gurney, U.S. Senator; Hon. George McGovern, U.S. Senator; Ton. J. Herbert Burke, Congressman; Hon. Dante B. Fascell, Congressman; Hon. Claude Pepper, Congressman; Hon. Paul G. Rogers, Congressman; Hon. Floyd T. Christian, commissioner, State department of education; Mrs. Louise A. K. Frolich, field coordinator, American School Food Service; Mr. Richard Lyng, Assistant Secretary, Department of Agriculture; Mr. Edward J. Hekman, Administrator, Department of Agriculture; Mr. Herbert D. Rorex, Director, Department of Agriculture; Mr. Russell James, Director, Department of Agriculture; Miss Josephine Martin, chairman, legislative committee, American School Food Service Association; Mr. Lawrence Bartlett, chairman, State directors section, American School Food Service Association.

From: O. L. Searing, director, school food service, Broward County; Mrs. Janet Shinn, director, school food service, Dade County; Mrs. Jane Lansing, director, school food service, Palm Beach County; Mrs. Elizabeth Pierce, president-elect, Florida School Food Service Association.

Re: Fiscal year 1972 proposed Federal regulations.

The school food service directors of Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties, representing one-third of Florida's public school children, met in Fort Lauderdale September 1, 1971, for the purpose of making specific recommendations concerning the proposed FY '72 amendments to the Food and Nutrition Services Regulations for Child Nutrition Programs. Also meeting with these directors was the president-elect of the Florida School Food Service Association.

The proposed regulations as stated will reduce available federal funds for continuing and expanding child feeding programs in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties for the fiscal year 1972.

The school boards of these districts have committed themselves to the attainment of President Nixon's goal of feeding all needy children. The records of these counties show the total number of Type "A" lunches served during 19701971 to economically needy children was as follows:

To effectively achieve the commitments of federal, State and local governments, the following specific recommendations are proposed:

(1) Monies for reimbursing meals for economically needy children must be based on the principle of reimbursing school districts for the cost of producing and serving a meal in whatever school the economically needy child is enrolled. (2) Federal rates of reimbursement should be based on the actual performance of a school district on a per meal basis.

Specifically, it is recommended that Section 4 monies be apportioned to school districts on a per meal basis at a minimum rate equal to one-third of the cost of purchased food. For these counties, this cost is calculated at .075 cents based on an average purchased food cost of .225 cents.

It is further recommended that Section 4 funds be allocated to the states on the basis of the per capita income of the state and the number of lunches served in the state as specified in the National School Lunch Act which provides a formula for the distribution of general for food assistance funds.

(3) Section 11 and 32 monies must be apportioned to school districts on an actual performance basis so that the cost of feeding needy children is not borne by the nonneedy child who chooses to participate in the program.

(4) It is also recommended that maximum flexibility in the use of Section 11 and 32 funds should be provided state agencies so that incentive reimbursement formulas for good management, improved performance, and proper supervision can be achieved.