Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator HART. Mr. John Ruggles, president of the Community Action Administrators Association.

Mr. RUGGLES. I am John Ruggles.

Senator HART. For the record will you identify those you are associated with?

Mr. REVIS. Ed Revis, executive director, O.C.C.E.O.

Mr. GRIER. Cris Grier, chairman of State Coordinating Committee on Emergency Food and Medical Services for Michigan.

Mr. GOLDBERG. David Goldberg, consultant to Control Systems Research to the national office, Office of Economic Opportunity for Emergency Food and Medical Services.

Mr. CALL. I am Jack Call from the State Economic Opportunity Office.

STATEMENT OF JOHN RUGGLES, CHAIRMAN, MICHIGAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATORS ASSOCIATION, BARRYTON, MICH., ACCOMPANIED BY J. CRIS GRIER, CHAIRMAN, FIVE-CAP, INC., DAVID A. GOLDBERG, CONSULTANT TO CONTROL SYSTEMS RESEARCH, INC., EDWARD P. REVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 0.C.C.E.O., AND JACK CALL, MICHIGAN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OFFICE

Mr. RUGGLES. I have a prepared statement. I will give this statement to you.

I apologize for the statement being somewhat incorrect in typing but the young lady that typed it this morning informed me she did not have an adequate breakfast.

Americans today are seriously probing into the general quality of life in this country and whether we agree or disagree on the variety of problems and issues. There cannot be any disagreement that millions of children are going hungry each day and that this is a result of inadequate leadership and indifference at the national level of our Government. The community action agencies in Michigan see this lack of initiative and commitment as an illegal and immoral attack on the birthright of the children of this State. To allow this to continue is to doom another generation of poor children to the cycle of poverty. Americans think of themselves as being deeply devoted to the well-being of their children and yet we are denying the fullest intellectual and physical development of poverty stricken children in this land because of badly constructed and misunderstood programs that are designed to eliminate hunger. Therefore, our association has appointed a statewide committee to seek solutions to the barriers in the national school lunch program and present our report to you.

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Cris Grier who is the chairman of this committee and who will now deliver the association report. Mr. GRIER. Senator Hart, Gentlemen.

Feeding hungry children is our number one priority.

The amendments to the National School Lunch Act (P.L. 91-48) signed by the President on May 14, 1970, makes a free or reduced price lunch available to every low-income child in the country.

President Nixon pledged that all low-income children in the Nation would have a free or reduced price lunch by Thanksgiving 1970. Federal money is available to help school districts set up and operate school lunch programs in all schools. In November of 1970 there were 295,000 children eligible for a free or reduced price lunch in the State of Michigan. There are probably more eligible children by now because of the high unemployment. But only 88,000 children were being fed such a school lunch. This means that there were 207,000 eligible children waiting for a lunch program. There were still 1,500 schools that did not have any lunch program.

Department of Agriculture officials and State school lunch directors share a common commitment to carry out the objectives_set forth in the new school lunch regulations which went into effect January 1, 1971. Both of the above encounter one major difficulty. At the State level, there is not sufficient staff to visit every school district and encourage full participation in the program.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS MADE EVASION POSSIBLE

In spite of the Congressional/Presidential mandate to see that the needy children are fed, some local school districts are still reluctant to expand or initiate lunch programs. Federal regulations leave room for local school districts to reinterpret laws and evade their responsibilities for feeding poor and needy children.

A statement taken from the Clearinghouse Review, January 1971 is as follows:

In almost every state in the country, and particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, there are still many schools without a school lunch program. The failure to implement programs, particularly in impoverished areas, is mainly attributable to the limited enlightenment and misplaced priorities of educators. In most cases they have either failed to comprehend the relationship between adequate nutrition and the ability to learn, or they have decided that poor children's nutritional concerns should take a back seat to political priorities established by the richer community. However, there are other reasons which are frequently asserted by school administrators, the most common being the absence of cafeteria and kitchen facilities.

While it is true that many schools do not presently have equipment or facilities to prepare mid-day meals, it does not necessarily follow that those schools are unable to operate a lunch program. Quite the contrary. A school district which does not have kitchen facilities in all of its schools can still operate a lunch program through one or a combination of several methods. It can:

(1) set up a satelite feeding system;

(2) establish a central kitchen program;

(3) provide meals through a catering service; or

(4) distribute cold lunches.

Each method of program implementation differs in desirability, but all of them at least make nutritious foods available.

If a school district prefers to purchase facilities and equipment, so that every school has a self-contained school lunch operation, then substantial amounts of federal money will be made available to help subsidize such purchases. The most important federal source of funding for this purpose are ss 5 of the School Lunch Act and ss 5 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966; the special school lunch program authorizations from ss 32 of the 1935 Agricultural Act; and Title 1 of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (called E.S.E.A.). In addition, state funds may also be available to purchase equipment for the implementation of the School Lunch programs. In short, for school districts that are determined to feed needy children, there are ample methods and resources available to assure mid-day meals for everyone.

If political and community organizing efforts fail to force the districts to establish school lunch programs in every school, then litigation efforts must

ensue.

Many school boards refuse to become financially liable in appropriating local school funds for feeding programs. These school boards feel more Federal funds should be allocated for lunchroom construction and also for the operation of a lunch program.

STIGMATIZED TREATMENT PREVENTS NEEDY PARTICIPATION

Poor children frequently choose not to participate in the free lunch program because of discriminatory and dehumanizing treatment against recipients. Parents often feel that their children will be slighted in school activities if they are getting a free lunch. Additionally, they fear either a moral judgment on the part of the teacher concerning a child's right to participate or a superior attitude on the part of other students who discover which children are getting free lunches. Although the teacher cannot directly prevent the child from receiving a free lunch, she can dramatize to his peer group a stigmatism of poverty. An extreme example of this may be witnessed in one northern Michigan school district, where a teacher writes the names of the children getting a free or reduced price lunch on the front blackboard so as to facilitate the weekly distribution of lunch tickets.

The State Coordinating Committee on Emergency Food and Medical Service finds that approximately 40 percent of the children eligible for a free or reduced price lunch are not being fed. This figure is around 300,000 children. A direct cause of this 40 percent nonparticipation is rooted in local interpretation of the laws. In some school districts, if a student lives within a mile of the school he must go home for lunch. There are a considerable number of poor and needy children that are forced to go home for lunch. Most of the poor never receive lunch at home; perhaps because they are aware of the lack of food at home for lunch; perhaps because the home lunch period is diverted to a home play period; perhaps because the parents can't force the child to eat food that does not exist.

In Kalamazoo, Dr. John Cochran, Kalamazoo School Superintendent, explained at a school board meeting in October 1970 that Kalamazoo's schools were built with the theory that children attending them could walk home for lunch. Because of this, no lunchroom facilities were built. Therefore, about 3,000 Kalamazoo children who are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch cannot receive them because of the lack of lunchroom facilities.

ACCOUNT NOT TAKEN OF 10-YEAR INFLATION

In Detroit, school authorities "determine" that a child whose father earns $47 a week for a family of four is able to pay. That's what Detroit's superintendent of schools testified in a lawsuit. He also stated that his school board's interpretation excluded every public-assistance-household child in Detroit from a free school lunch and every child on AFDC (Aid to Families of Dependent Children).

This $47-a-week rule was set back in 1960. Although the dollar is worth some 20 cents less today than it was then, no one has troubled to change the $47 exclusion level.

In Rural Grant, Mich., in January 1971, there were approximately 161 children eligible for a free or reduced price lunch: 39 received lunch at a reduced price, while only four received lunches free. This means there were 122 poor not being served. We find this school district's policy statement only refers to lunches at a reduced rate and fails to mention lunches "Free." There are other school districts that likewise fail to mention free lunches in their policy statement andonly refer to lunches at a reduced rate.

Battle Creek, Mich., Calhoun County, the 12th largest county in the State, is only serving 10 percent of their needy children lunch at a free or reduced rate.

The State Coordinating Committee on Emergency Food and Medical Service wishes to acknowledge the indepth farsight that Senator Philip A. Hart had as early as 1964 to introduce to the Congress one of the earliest bills on the school lunch program. Community Action agencies were aware of his endorsement when they found cooperative efforts within their respective areas to implement the school lunch program of January 1971.

We have evidence of some 10 or more school districts not providing any free school lunches to their children. We show some comparative figures for January 1971 and March 1971.

In two of the school districts no free lunches were served because the reduced price lunch was only 5 cents and in two other school districts they decided the reduced price lunches were far below the 20cent level so they at this point were providing no free lunches. In one school district they told the State they received no applications for free or reduced price lunches. The local Community Action Agency is checking this situation out.

Flint, Mich., will expand their lunch program operation to 41 schools and by September they will be serving in all school buildings. This should show a marked increase in reduced and also the free lunches.

On the four school districts of McBain Rural, Whitmore Lake, Stephenson, Mendon, we have little or no information on their programs, we are in the process of having the local Community Action program check the local procedures being followed.

40 PERCENT NOT BEING REACHED

Forty percent of the 300,000 Michigan students who qualifiy for a free or reduced price lunch are not being reached. The goal of the Community Action program and the Emergency Food and Medical Service program is to cut this number by one-half to only 20 percent not being fed by September 1971. The January 1972 goal is to further reduce the number of children not being reached to 10 percent of those who qualified. We are aware that there are some children who, for reasons of their own, do not want a free lunch. But by utilizing the Community Action program, Emergency Food and Medical Service outreach workers, we will be able to zero in on this total group of 40 percent not now being fed.

After discussion with regional staff, USDA staff, and the State School Lunch Director, it was determined that OEO region V and local Community Action programs could provide valuable assistance in helping school districts implement new feeding programs and expand existing programs.

The following is an outline of the procedure followed by the State Coordinating Committee on Emergency Food and Medical Service to accomplish these objectives: Existing resources of USDA and Child Nutrition Division, enlisting the aid of VISTA, Legal Service, Emergency Food, Control Systems Research, Inc., of Arlington, Va., the regional OEO, the State Resources such as the State School Lunch Directors, State Economic Opportunity Offices, additional possible State resources, the State labor federations and other statewide civic organizations, statewide church organizations and Welfare Rights Organizations, the local resources, the Local Education agencies, Community Action agencies. Outreach to assure that parents understand and that all eligible children are receiving a free or reduced price lunch. Emergency Food and Medical Service staff to assist local school districts on a short-range basis with the possibility of utilizing small amounts of Emergency Food and Medical Services

moneys.

Emergency Food and Medical Services Outreach staff informed their policy groups and local area residents to encourage response to State legislature aiding the school lunch program, such as House bills Nos. 4106, 4103 and 4636, requesting State funds for a free or reduced price lunch for all needy children.

Our plan for action is to arrange meetings with the State School Lunch Director, requesting our local SEOO to make necessary arrangements; to develop lines of communications between Community Action agencies, local school officials, Parents' Advisory Councils, low-income groups and others to gather a program and pinpoint the area of concentrated need.

The progress to date is an overview of the Emergency Food and Medical Services programs, the role and functions of Control Systems Research as it relates to the program and the need for input regarding training by trainees.

Some of the immediate training needs are training for Outreach Workers, managerial training relative to guidelines, administration, and implementation of the new emphasis, and the first major need is the input on the school lunch program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The State Coordinating Committee of the staff therefore makes the following recommendations:

(1) We recommend that no Federal funds be made available to school districts that do not have school lunch programs.

(2) We recommend that the Federal School Lunch Law require free lunches be provided to every child of a family where annual income is below the USDA subsistence level guidelines; currently the USDA guidelines for eligibility of children to receive free or reduced price lunches are well over $1,000 below that subsistence level. (3) We recommend that every school district having a significant