Mr. HUGH R. GALLAGHER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Acting Director, Child Nutrition Division, THE CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GALLAGHER: In reference to your letter of August 4, the case in Rockbridge County, Virginia, was not cited in the testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, but was part of the statement before the Citizens Board of Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition in the United States given on February 15, 1971. For specific details about this incident about the tenant farmer please contact T.A.P., Box 862, Lexington, Virginia. They cited this case in a letter of December 1970. The example listed in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was changed as Mr. Herbert Rorex well knows. The change was due in part to the intervention of Senator Philip Hart and the School Lunch Committee of Kent County, 316 O'Keefe Place S. W., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504. For details on the Portland, Maine, situation contact the Rural Council for Community Action, Douglas Hill, Maine 04023. Bread and Justice, BARBARA BODE, Miss BARBARA BODE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Program Director, The Children's Foundation, DEAR MISS BODE: We are in the process of conducting a thorough investigation of the charges contained in your May 3 testimony before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. However, we have been unable to investigate certain cases because insufficient specific information was given. In order to resolve these cases could you provide us with details regarding the following allegations: 1. Virginia (Rockbridge County)-One family was denied because their father is a tenant farmer, getting a salary, but his free house and 2 hogs were counted as income and his children denied a free lunch. 2. Michigan (Grand Rapids)-Families on welfare charged 15 cents for lunch. Local school officials refused to see the families. 3. Maine (Portland)-One school would be able to nearly double the number of lunches served per day with the addition of a steam table. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving these complaints. Sincerely, HUGH R. GALLAGHER, Acting Director, Child Nutrition Division. 58-854 0-71-pt. 7-8 Appendix 2 MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES ITEM 1-FROM MR. LAWRENCE BARTLETT* 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 a food service program that would put an end to hunger among America's School Children. The outlook for 1971-72 as presented by Secretary Lyng and other U.S.D.A. officials makes it impossible to fulfill the mandate presented by the Congress and the commitment of the President. Even with an increased level of funding for FY 1972, and the Congressional intent to fully implement 91–248, the availability of funds is meaningless unless reasonable regulations will permit states to implement the programs. The State Directors recognize the value of having minimum reimbursement established for all Type A meals, however the 5¢ average proposed for each Type A meal is inadequate in light of current operating and constantly escalating food and labor costs. The average rate of 30¢ per meal for free and reduced lunches as set forth in proposed regulations is unequivocally inadequate and furthermore we feel that such a limitation would jeopardize the existing program and preclude any expansion to reach the additional estimated 3 to 5 million hungry children in America. *See p. 1749 The Regulatory restrictions and funding projections as proposed are bringing the school lunch programs to a screeching halt, and will result in a termination of programs in many places. The state plans of operation as prepared for 1971-72 become null and void by each state as the plans were developed in good faith to meet the challenge of the President and Congress to feed the hungry children in America's Schools. Furthermore the proposed regulations restricting the spending of non-food assistance funds, prohibiting the transfer of funds, and the eliminating of bloc grants will eliminate the flexibility that permitted the states to reach additional children through appropriate programs for the individual states. The concepts contained in the proposed regulations appear to be a reversal of President Nixon's expressed philosophy of Revenue sharing and local autonomy. The State Directors recognize an un-equivocal need for a minimum average of 40¢ per lunch for free and reduced lunches in addition to general cash for food assistance and the commodity assistance when the commodities are of practical value to the food service system. It seems inconsistent that we pay 4¢ for milk (although we fully recognized its value) and 5¢ for Type A lunches in program schools. It is imperative that the average reimbursement for general cash for food assistance reflect a minimum average rate and consideration for per capita income of the various states. The State Directors would ask the President, the Congress and Department of Agriculture to determine the priority for Child Nutrition Programs in America. If feeding hungry school children has a high priority, we ask that funds be provided to do the job in a responsible manner. If this determination of priority is not clearly stated and subsequently supported with funds and reasonable regulations, the inevitable facts are these: 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!! STATE AGENCY DIRECTORS OF USDA MIDWEST REGION COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, OBJECTIONS, AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE AUGUST 25, 1961. The eleven State Agency Directors of the USDA Midwest Region, namely, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, met in session in Chicago, Illinois, to discuss the Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued in the Federal Register on August 13, 1971, concerning the Food and Nutrition Service (7 CFR Part 210, 7 CFR Part 220, 7 CFR Part 245). In a unanimous resolution they submit the following comments, suggestions, objections, and questions. 1. Overall (a) State Agency Directors had no advance notice of these proposed changes prior to a news release dated August 4, 1971, issued by the Chicago USDA Regional office. (b) When State Agency Directors contacted the Chicago USDA office, which is usually well informed, this office could offer no information whatever. (c) Most State Directors had taken action under existing regulations prior to the release, had made agreements with schools regarding free and reduced-price lunches, reimbursement rates, had approved nonfood assistance applications, and had processed other typical administrative details. (d) State Directors had started management planning as far back as last May to reprogram data processing, revise, print, and mail claim forms to participating schools together with current instructions, issue agreements, distribute a monthly newsletter to schools, and perform other administrative management functions in order to incorporate all major changes in regulations and procedures which took place during last fiscal year (1971). This was to prepare for fiscal year 1972 operations prior to the opening of schools this fall. (e) School boards, school administrators, school food service personnel and others had taken action locally (in schools) based on current instructions. (f) State Directors received the proposed changes in regulations on or after August 16, 1971, after many free and reduced-price lunch policies had been acted upon and approved by the State Agency in accordance with regulations. Approvals were granted to start new lunch and breakfast programs to schools having no program. Some states have reported a firm commitment to provide a 60-cent reimbursement in Indian schools no longer receiving Johnson O'Malley Funds for lunch program operations. (g) We believe it is an impractical administrative policy for states to implement regulatory changes after July 1. (h) We observe that Washington, D.C., USDA officials and Midwest Regional USDA officials have explained and interpreted the proposed changes as if they were the final regulations before they received comments, suggestions, or objections prior to the expiration date of August 28, 1971, for receiving such comments. (i) We also observe that final regulations cannot be issued in the Federal Register prior to the opening of schools provided that the comments, suggestions, or objections which were solicited are read, studied, and given due consideration. (j) We observe that schools will therefore be forced to operate their child feeding programs for considerable time without adequate information about program operations including reimbursement rates, etc., which are considered essential to good management practices, particularly budgeting. (k) It is also observed that this USDA announcement comes at the very time schools are processing applications for free and reduced-price lunches. Adverse publicity at this time will cause schools to be less liberal when approving applications for free and reduced-price lunches based on undue hardships. (1) Therefore, it is our recommendation that these proposed changes be thoroughly reviewed by a committee that will contain a representation of State Directors some of whom have had school administrative experience in schools and understand the problems school administrators and school food service personnel face. In no event should any changes be issued prior to July 1. Any hasty action by the USDA other than that recommended above will be, in the opinion of the group, detrimental to the entire school feeding program. (m) We have appointed a committee from among our members to study and compare final regulations with the comments, suggestions, or objections stated herein. Should this committee find that these comments, suggestions, or objections were ignored, it shall request a meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture for further discussion. 2. Part 210.4(f) (a) In each of the eleven states, the amount of federal funds available last school year under Section 4 as supplemented by "Interim Action Memo" under Section 32, was greater than the federal funds that have been apportioned for fiscal year 1972 despite the fact that more lunches will be served. (b) The President's price freeze affects the price of lunches served children. Some state legislatures have imposed tax freezes on their school districts limiting expenditures. School budgets in some states have been adopted by their boards of education after public hearings have been held. Question: With less Federal reimbursement funds, with increased numbers of lunches to be served, with a price freeze and a tax freeze, where will the money come from to support the program? The State Directors see two alternatives unless the USDA increases Federal reimbursement: Some schools will have to discontinue their National School Lunch program. Other schools will cut down on the amount of food served to less than minimum Type A requirements. We remind that either of the above alternatives will affect the hungry child the most, especially the economically needy child who is undernourished. (c) The proposed change will be detrimental to the expansion of the program because it will be to the financial advantage of States to not start new programs in order to decrease the number of lunches served and thereby pay more reimbursement to participating schools in order to keep them financially solvent. |