I will have to admit that in the beginning of the cash program there were food service people fearing the unknown. They had not operated a lunch program without having donated food items. The facts are that the cash has been used to purchase needed food items to provide the same kinds of menus previously served. The chief complaints came from Head Start programs not affiliated with schools. Ironically, these programs are the newest in the family. of child nutrition programs, and have had the least experience with the commodity program. We should conclude our comments on cash for commodities with a commendation to the Food and Nutrition Service for the promptness they exercised in providing the authorization of funds through letters of credit. The first distribution of cash to schools in Kansas was completed within 2 weeks after the effective date of letter of credit authorization in November 1974. May I also mention some concerns I have with certain sections of S. 850? As State director of the food service programs, I am concerned particularly with the administration of the programs within the confines of legislation and regulation. I am concerned with administration at the State level, and also I am sympathetic to the problems of the school administrator in this area. Some of the most difficult situations are inherent in the free and reduced price meal regulations. Many families consider the application an invasion of privacy. They may be within the guidelines and eligible for reduced price meals, but as a matter of principle hesitate to complete the application. We believe that with an unemployment rate of less than 10 percent, there should be several times that number who are employed and within the dollar guidelines for reduced price meals. They have not applied for the benefits of the program. In Kansas 18 percent of the total meals served are free, and only 3 percent of the total meals are reduced price meals. This might lead one to conclude that the remaining 79 percent are served to children from affluent families. Kansans are hard working people, but they are not all in that nercentage who are affluent or who have incomes above the eligibility guidelines. This leads to my conclusion that the application is a part of the problem. Besides being an invasion of privacy, the use of the application is an administrator's headache. He has to signify his approval or acceptance of data that he really cannot verify without a further invasion of privacy. The administration of this free and reduced price policy has been estimated to cost more than $1 million a year in Kansas alone. When we can distribute $5 million as cash-in-lieu of commodities with no added administrative costs, it is rather ironic that it costs $1 inillion to implement a free meal policy. As a taxpayer, as well as a program administrator, I am in agreement with the concept of an established reimbursement rate or meal cost whichever is the lesser. The management information resulting from the meal cost data is most valuable. However, without adminis-. trative funds made available to the local level to employ a program director with the ability and responsibility to prepare and use this data, it is meaningless. Food service programs are no longer hot lunch programs of WPA days. With breakfast and lunch for the school child, and with food. prepared and often served to day care children and also to the elderly in congregate centers, the school feeding program has developed like Topsy. Directors are needed by the multiunit districts. Another point of concern is the effect of recent court decisions which hold that school food authorities must provide like service for all attendance centers. This could lead to a cutback of programs or a decided increase of programs such as providing breakfast. In either case, use of facilities would be affected. Out of 1,720 attendance centers serving lunch, there are only 124 attendance centers serving breakfast. In March there were over 5,850,000 lunches served, compared to 132,000 breakfasts. However, the number of free lunches served averaged 18 percent of that total compared to 48 percent of breakfasts served free. In Kansas we have not experienced a cut back in participation as meal prices have increased. This year we project 54 million meals will be served, compared to 52 million last year. The percentage of free and reduced meals has shown little change. There is strong feeling among my coworkers against the proposed 25 cents ceiling on meal prices. Food service people are unanimous in their opposition to the amendment to change the word "served" to "offered." At best, this could only remove the food waste, which was the point of concern in the amendment, from the dining room to the kitchen. It would reduce the nutritional value of the lunch without reducing food costs. It would result in conservative cooks recycling leftovers to the point of no return. Children resist leftovers. Participation would suffer. Complaints would increase. There would be no educational value to the school lunch program. We have found that selective menus, selection of items within a menu, and combination of a la carte and type A programs are increasing participation and reducing plate waste. In promoting this kind of choice, we are emphasizing to school administrators the need for nutrition education to enable the child to make wise choices. Section 13 of Senate bill 850 concerns the special food service program. Paragraph (a) (2) of that section would remove IRS tax exemption as a criteria for qualification. We have relied on this criteria to help us determine eligibility of the center for participation in the program. There must be some assurance that we are not using Federal funds to subsidize private enterprise. Paragraph (b) (1) establishes rates of reimbursement to equal rates paid for national school lunch and school breakfast for the day care centers. The intent is generous, but the practicality is questionable. The portions served to a child in a day care center are only about half that served to a high school child. The costs would not be comparable. Labor costs and management practices are not the same. At the current rates of reimbursement or food costs, whichever is the lesser, the 140 centers participating in the vear-round special food service program for children received $261,152. On a rate only basis, 52-880 0-75- -7 these same centers would have been reimbursed $292,452 for the number of meals served. This is a difference of $31,300 due to food cost not justifying full rate payments. In view of this experience, I urge that section 13, section (b)(1) be amended to provide more realistic rates of reimbursement. I thank you for allowing me to present these views on behalf of the sponsors of the various child nutrition programs. Senator DOLE. I thank you, Ms. George. I have a series of questions. Would it be accurate to say that almost all of the local officials in Kansas have been satisfied with the cash-in-lieu of commodities program? You indicated in your statement there was some fear and maybe some resistance. Ms. GEORGE. I think they are more unanimous in that than in any other part of the program; not completely unanimous, but more unanimous. Senator DOLE. I understand. Anything that is unanimous probably is not any good anyway. Based upon the experience you have had since last fall, do you think the extension of the cash program to summer feeding in day care centers would be advisable, or have you had enough experience? Ms. GEORGE. I have mixed feelings. The reimbursement rate has been increased. The day care centers and the Head Start programs are very small, most of them serving only 30, 40, or 50 children at a center, and their availability of commodities was not good when they were receiving commodities. They could not split cases and this kind of thing. They had not facilities to go to a distribution center to pick them up. Senator DOLE. Do you think in a followup to that, that you are getting as much nutritious food with the cash as you would with the commodities? You mentioned peanut granules and grapefruit juice, which I assume are plentiful. Ms. GEORGE. I think that our meals are at least as good if not better than previously. These schools have made an effort to upgrade the menus. We hear of more roast beef served; ham for Easter dinners, this kind of thing that they did not have before. And of course, they are still meeting type A requirements on every meal. Senator DOLE. You feel then, based on the experience you have had, there has been an upgrading? Ms. GEORGE. Yes. Senator DOLE. All right. You have indicated what it might do for some Kansas people and have mentioned the cooperation of the Kansas Wheat Commission. I think it is fair to say that it does assist local producers and local merchants and has an impact on the economy, whereas the commodities would not. Ms. GEORGE. I think of the $5 million, that it has all been spent in Kansas. Senator DOLE. Right, and that goes to taxpayers, and they send some of it back so that we can send more Ms. GEORGE. More back again. Senator DOLE. I appreciate very much your coming. I am sorry that Senator McGovern had to leave, but he is making a speech about now. In any event, I think the Kansas experiment will be successful enough that we can try it in other places. I appreciate your good work in making it successful. Ms. GEORGE. Thank you. Senator DOLE. I want to make all of the exhibits attached to Ms. George's statement a part of the record because I think they indicate some of the savings and some of the comments concerning cash-in-lieu of commodities that would be important as we study the record. They are appended to her statement that she has read, and they will be made a part of the record. [The exhibits referred to follow:] Total of items numbered 1-9 for Data Entry Control: 33.810 FINANCIAL STATUS SUMMARY OF ALL ATTENDANCE CENTERS AS OF LAST DAY OF CALENDAR MONTH Closing cash balance for the month (Total item 1-F Minus total item 2-E) Total of all unpaid bills on hand. $ 18,301-58 ** DISTRICT NUMBER SHOW THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM NUMBER ASSIGNED BY KSDE FOR NON-PUBLIC |