THE VICE PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1972. DEAR MR. VICE PRESIDENT: Pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 92-153, we are transmitting herewith a report to Congress on the funding status of the School Breakfast Program and the Nonfood Assistance Program. States were asked to report on the number of applications and funds required for school breakfast and equipment assistance received from "needy" schools as of November 15, 1971, and not approved due to lack of funds. Section 7 of Public Law 92–153 authorizes the Department to meet requests for additional school breakfast funds through the use of Section 32 funds. Therefore, with the submission of this report, the Department is taking action to authorize the States to approve the pending applications for the school breakfast program as reported in the recent survey. This increase of $3 million in 1972 funds is reflected in the President's fiscal year 1973 budget. In regard to equipment assistance, nine States have reported that they have $1.9 million in requests pending which cannot be approved within available funds. These States have received over $1.9 million this fiscal year for such assistance. Of these already apportioned funds it is anticipated that about $700,000 will be allocated to schools in these States already in the program, to upgrade equipment or to provide additional equipment. With the submission of this report the Department is also taking action to authorize the States to approve the pending applications for equipment assistance as noted in the reports. The necessary funds will be provided under the appropriate Section 32 authority. Sincerely, RICHARD E. LYNG. REPORT TO CONGRESS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 92-153 ON FUNDING STATUS OF THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST AND NONFOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Section 3 of Public Law 92-153 provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to Congress the needs for additional funds to carry out the School Breakfast and Nonfood Assistance Programs "during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, at levels which will permit expansion of the school breakfast and school lunch programs to all schools desiring such programs as rapidly as practicable." I. INTRODUCTION The School Breakfast Program, authorized by Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, provides Federal cash assistance and donated commodities to assist schools operating breakfast programs. The law provides that priority in the use of program funds shall be given "to those schools drawing attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist, to those schools in which a substantial proportion of the children enrolled must travel long distances daily, and to those schools in which there is a special need for improving the nutrition and dietary practices of children of working mothers and children from low-income families." The Nonfood (Equipment) Assistance Program, authorized by Section 5 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, provides Federal assistance to acquire food service equipment to schools which draw attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist and which have no, or grossly inadequate, equipment for food service. II. CURRENT FUNDING FOR FISCAL 1972 School Breakfast Program: The Agriculture Appropriation Act for fiscal 1972 (Public Law 92-73) provided a direct appropriation of $25 million for the School Breakfast Program, $6.5 million of which was to be placed in contingency reserve to be released on demonstrated need. The Act also authorized the use of $3 million in Section 32 funds for the program in 1972. Of the total $28 million available, $18.5 million has been apportioned to the States on the basis of the formula prescribed in the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Under this apportionment, 27 State did not receive sufficient funds to enable them to continue already-approved programs for the full 1972 fiscal year. The remaining funds now available will first be used to permit these 27 States to continue their already-approved programs for the full fiscal year. It is estimated that as much as $9.0 million of the remaining $9.5 million will be needed for this purpose. The President's budget for fiscal year 1973 subsequently provided for a total of $31 million for fiscal year 1972. Nonfood Assistance Program: The Appropriation Act provided $16.1 million for the Nonfood Assistance Program in fiscal 1972. These funds have been apportioned to States in accordance with the formula prescribed in the Act. Under Department regulations, States are required to reserve 50 percent of their apportioned share through February 1, 1972, for use in schools currently without a food service. III. SURVEY OF STATES Following enactment of Public Law 92-153, the Department of Agriculture surveyed State Educational Agencies and Regional Offices of the Food and Nutrition Service, which directly administers the program in nonprofit private schools in 22 States, to obtain information to determine: (a) The number of pending applications for the School Breakfast Program for needy schools which could not be approved within available funds, and the estimated number of breakfasts to be served daily in the schools applying. (b) The number of needy schools without food service which had made application for nonfood (equipment assistance to enable them to enter the lunch or breakfast program, and which could not be approved within available funds; and an estimate of additional funds needed to process such applications. IV. RESULTS OF SURVEY School Breakfast Program: As of November 15, a total of 1,170 schools in 20 States had applied for the School Breakfast Program and had not been approved due to lack of funds. These 1,170 schools expected to serve 284,466 breakfasts daily. (See Table I.) Funding the breakfast programs in these 1,170 schools for the remainder of the school year would require the use of an estimated $3 million in additional funds in 1972. Nonfood Assistance Program: As of November 15, a total of 322 needy schools without food service in nine States had applied for Nonfood Assistance Funds and had not been fully approved due to lack of funds. (See Table II) Approving these schools would cost $1.9 million in excess of the States' share of Nonfood Assistance funds which they have reserved for use in needy schools without food service. TABLE I-STATES HOLDING APPLICATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM FROM NEEDY SCHOOLS, AS OF NOVEMBER 15, 1971 State Arizona. Kansas. Maine. Minnesota. North Dakota. Ohio.. South Dakota. Texas. Vermont. Total. TABLE II.-STATES HOLDING APPLICATIONS FOR NONFOOD ASSISTANCE 1 The figures shown reflect the amount of funds needed in excess of the States share of 1972 fiscal year nonfood assistance funds which they have reserved or obligated for use in needy schools without food service. By regulation, each State was required to reserve 50 percent of its fiscal year 1972 funds for such schools through February 1, 1972. * includes 106 schools which have received partial approval from available funds for nonfood assistance, and additional applications from 61 school districts which have not been approved for any funding. FROM CHAIRMAN MCGOVERN February 17, 1972. Hon. RICHARD LYNG, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The survey conducted by the Department of Agriculture pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 92-153 is, in my opinion, totally inadequate and fails wholly to fulfill the requirements of that Law. Section 3 of Public Law 92–153 provides that the Secretary shall report to Congress the needs for additional funds to carry out the School Breakfast and Non-food Assistance Programs during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, at levels which will permit expansion of the School Breakfast and School Lunch Programs to all schools desiring such programs as rapidly as practicable. The key to Congressional intent in this mandate is the word "desiring." The obvious intent of Congress was to find out how many schools desired these programs. Instead of reporting this information to Congress, your survey reports on the number of schools which have applied for the School Breakfast and Nonfood Assistance Programs and those not approved due to the lack of funds. The basic flaw in this is that not all schools that desired these programs applied for them because it is the common practice of local program directors to contact their state director's office to inquire as to the availability of funds for these programs before formally applying. Since the Department of Agriculture's own report states that there were no funds available the majority of these local directors did not go through the unnecessary effort and expense of formally applying for the programs. Therefore, this survey, in reporting the number of schools who applied for the School Breakfast and Non-food Assistance Programs rather than the number that "desired" these programs, seriously underestimates the number of schools "desiring" such programs but unable to participate due to the lack of funds. Clearly, the Department could have conducted a survey, as Congress obviously intended, to determine the number of schools "desiring" the programs. This could have been done very simply by directing the state directors to transmit this request to their local school directors for local surveys. The results of the local-statewide surveys could then have been gathered by the state directors and been reported state by state to the Department. Instead, the states were asked to report the number of schools that had applied and not been funded due to a lack of available funds. The error in the methodology of this survey is so basic as to raise serious questions as to whether this is yet another attempt to curtail the expansion of these programs and therefore thwart of the will of Congress. Due to the serious inadequacy of the report that the Department has transmitted to Congress, I am requesting, both as a member of the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee and as Chairman of the Senate Select Com mittee on Nutrition and Human Needs, that you supply me by March 1 with the number of schools currently "desiring" to participate in the School Breakfast and Non-food Assistance Programs but unable to due to the lack of funds. I look forward to your earliest possible response to this request. Sincerely yours, GEORGE MCGOVERN, Chairman. Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of February 17, which outlined your reaction to our report on the status of the School Breakfast and Nonfood Assistance Programs. We would agree that the language of section 3 of Public Law 92-153 might well be subject to various interpretations. It was our view that the intent of section 3 was to insure that sufficient funds were available in 1972 to permit approval of all needy schools (those that are accorded first consideration in the enabling legislation) that were ready to inaugurate a breakfast program this fiscal year. To have interpreted the word "desiring" to include those schools which now, or in the future, might wish to inaugurate a breakfast program would have provided a basis for projecting future program trends. However, it would not have provided us with the type of data on which to take concrete actions to approve additional funding this fiscal year. Likewise, we believe the report on the Nonfood Assistance Program made it possible for this Department to meet 1972 priority equipment needs to start a food service in needy no-program schools. State educational agencies are now submitting State Plans of Child Nutrition Operations for the fiscal year 1973. In those Plans, the States are including information on their plans for the Breakfast Program in 1973. We are now in the process of summarizing that data to present at the scheduled hearing of your Committee on March 7. Sincerely, RICHARD LYNG, Assistant Secretary. FROM CHAIRMAN CARL D. PERKINS CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. GEORGE MCGOVERN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1972. Chairman, Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Immediately following release of the survey conducted by the Department of Agriculture pursuant to Section 3 of Public Law 92-153, I contacted the Department of Agriculture relative to the conclusions they had developed that only 1,170 schools desired a school breakfast program for 1972. I followed up on the Kentucky situation very closely, because it was brought to my attention that no schools in my state were requesting funds, and I knew this not to be a fact. Your letter of February 17th to Secretary Lyng confirms and reinforces my protest that the survey failed to disclose the full extent to which funds are lacking for the school breakfast program. At a time when we should be looking toward a wide expansion of this well-received program, we are faced with another threat from the Department to thwart the desires and needs of the nation's schools for the program. I will cooperate fully with you in support of child nutrition programs, and hope we are now on the road to a real breakthrough in the direction of universal school nutrition. Sincerely, CARL D. PERKINS, |