seventh time I had been here, and I believe Mr. Whitten and Mr. Marshall and Mr. Horan have been here all seven times, and I appreciate your not getting tired of me.

Mr. WHITTEN. The people in our districts being willing, we expect to be here next year too, Mrs. Stough.

Mrs. STOUGH. In preparation for this testimony, I sent out letters to the 48 States asking questions about the school-lunch program.

I have so many, Mr. Chairman, I would like to file a summary of the information I got. I got very good replies from 43 of those States, so in my testimony today I would like to highlight some of the things that they said, but for your record, I would like to give you in more detail the summaries of those answers, if that is agreeable.

Mr. WHITTEN. We would be pleased to have it in the record. (The above-mentioned summary follows.)

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM AS OBTAINED BY THE AMERICAN PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC.

Letters were sent to 48 States. Replies were received from 43. States not replying were Alabama, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia.

Below are listed each of the questions asked and a summary of the replies to each.

No. 1. Do you consider the present Federal cash allotment to your State adequate?

Forty-two State administrators replied that they considered their allotment much too small. One State (South Dakota) considers its allotment adequate. No. 2. (a) Has the average price per lunch been increased or decreased in the past two years?

Schools in 32 States have had to increase the price of their lunches. Others have held the line or had only slight increases.

(b and c) Has the change affected the number of lunches sold? How? Sixteen States reported they had evidence that an increase in the price per lunch causes participation to go down. Utah and New Mexico have found that increased prices cause a one-third decrease in participation.

Nine States replied that they had done no studies on effect of price increases on participation. Five States said increased prices had had no effect this year on participation. Missouri said increase in prices had led to very close screening of applicants for free lunches. Evidence of more bag lunches with purchase of milk was reported by Rhode Island. Twelve States did not answer. Some of them said that the spread of the program to more schools made it too difficult to get comparable figures on participation.

No. 3. (a) Has the interest and financial support of your State increased or decreased in the past 2 years?

Financial assistance increased in 17 States. However, only New York, Massachusetts, and Louisiana provide any funds to help pay cost of providing lunches. The increased help by other States has been an increase in supervisory and administrative costs, and assistance in the purchase of facilities and equipment. For two States financial support from the State decreased.

In 20 States the financial interest and support remained the same.
Four States did not answer the question.

No. 4. Has local support (apart from payment for day to day lunches) increased or decreased in the past 2 years?

Twenty-nine States report increases in local support of the lunch programs. Three States said local support was necessary to keep school rooms open in the face of reduced surplus commodities. Fourteen States reported no increase in local support.

No. 5. (a) Have you any areas in your State which are undergoing an economic decline?

(b) If so, has it been reflected in the demands on the lunch programs in those schools?

Thirty States reported significant or considerable unemployment or economic decline; ten States reported no decline or "negligible"; three States did not answer question.

Of the 30 reporting economic decline, 23 reported that there was a demand for more free lunches. Three more States reported that economic decline is placing great strain on the lunch program. Arkansas says demand for free lunches exceeds ability of schools to provide meals under present reimbursement rate. Minnesota is allowing maximum reimbursement per lunch for schools in the areas of serious unemployment. Idaho reports that school lunchrooms in the northern sections of the State are in dire distress and are likely to close.

Four of the 30 States report that they have no information of the effect of the economic decline on the program or that it is too early to tell.

No. 6. If unemployment should become greater or spread to other areas, would you be able financially to help protect children from the malnutrition which might follow?

Answers to this question were quite indefinite. Twenty-four States said they could do nothing more than is being done. Several said it would be up to the local districts. A few said the price per lunch for pupils who could pay would have to be raised to take care of the lunches which had to be served free. Several did not answer.

No. 7. (a) Do you personally think the Federal Government should increase its appropriations?

(b) Do you think there would be support for an increase among the voters of your State?

(a) Forty-one administrators answered "yes." Illinois did not answer the question. South Dakota said "No."

(b) Twenty-seven said "Yes, definitely." "No." Eight did not answer.

Six said "doubtful."

Two said

No. 8. If Federal support for the school-lunch program should taper off, do you think your State would take up the slack?

Most administrators found this difficult to answer. Many said their only basis of reasoning was past attitude of State to the lunch program. Several said if State should take over program, it would be for public schools only.

The replies tallied somewhat as follows:

Mrs. STOUGH. Forty-two of the States said they believed the Federal cash allotment inadequate. Only one State, South Dakota, believed the allotment satisfactory. Eight of the administrators went so far as to say that if the appropriation is not to keep pace with the needs, the School Lunch Act should be amended; because, they say, they cannot do the job spelled out under the act under present appropriations.

State after State reported that they are having greater difficulty operating this year than at any year since the program began.

From Florida, they say:

Through December 31 of this school year, school lunch expenditures have exceeded income by more than half a million dollars. Over one-third of the school-lunch programs in the State are now operating in the red or on a hand to mouth basis.

Then from Utah, we get this report, Mr. Chairman--

**The districts in Utah are at the breaking point now in assuming the responsibility of increased participation and development with less and less each month on a per meal basis from the Federal appropriation * * * there is considerable cutback in employment in the mining industry of our State, also in steel manufacturing and other businesses. This complicates our problem. Along with the decline in USDA commodities the districts are operating at a heavy loss as indicated by accompanying figures.

And they sent the figures in for their State, which are included in the summary that I have filed.

The next State, Tennessee, had this to say:

** In November we had more schools and more programs with a deficit than any time in the history of our program. There is more need for free lunches; there is greater evidence of the need for better meals.

This is due to several factors. The increase in the program caused a reduction in rates to the schools.

We know about that because we have been over it so many years.

The great cut in USDA commodities coming to the schools and the unemployment and disasters which have occurerd in Tennessee.

The quotations I have given from these three States spell out reasons for the difficulties: (1) Inability of Federal funds to keep pace with growth of program; (2) shortage this year of surplus commodities, which Mrs. Radue has gone into in detail; and (3) unemploy

ment.

The first point has been covered so well so many times with this committee that I need not dwell on it now. On the surplus of usual commodities, I will let the letters from some of the States tell the story. From California, we hear:

* * the donated food program has been sharply reduced this year, and the schools particularly miss the variety of items they have received in the past * * *. I do not see how school administrators can be expected to do much in the way of long-range planning when the lunch program is so closely geared to the price-support program and all its uncertainties. One year we receive a large volume and variety of commodities and the next year we have a famine. Then from Minnesota, we hear this:

* * * the substitution of USDA donated commodites for Federal cash support is unthinkable under present subsidies because of the very nature of the commodities distribution program. Witness this: Last year we received protein foods-meats, turkeys, shell eggs, beans-sufficient to take care of 123 meals. This year we have received just one item of meat

as you know, that was purchased under section 6

and that was sufficient to take care of 11 meals

that is 11 against 123.

The only items that we are assured of receiving are butter, cheese, dry milk solids, rice, and flour.

You have heard from the Department, I assume, that there were no turkeys distributed this year, no pork, no shell eggs, and no beef except the small amount of hamburger purchased with section 6 funds.

The difficulties of the lunch program because of unemployment are spelled out in detail in a great many of the letters we received. In fact, I did not realize unemployment was touching certain areas that it is, apparently, from these replies.

There was drought in some areas of the country and floods in others. More recently, the freezing weather brought crop losses to the South. This means the children of low-income farmers and migrants-and this is especially true in Florida-really need a free lunch if they are not to go hungry.

In Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, the children of unemployed miners need to be fed. Unemployment in the industrial areas of other States have added to the need for free lunches.

Now, I am going to quote from Arkansas' reply:

one school in eastern Arkansas with an average participation of 440 children has a free meal load of 130 children with new demands for free meals coming in each day. The school administrator reported this increase was despite careful screening as to need. He was rapidly approaching a deficit operation.

From California, we get this:

our daily participation is now—

and the date of this letter was January 20-

65,000 below our estimate at the beginning of the school year.

From Missouri:

Just last week we visited a school in southeast Missouri in which 450 lunches were served the day of our visit. Of the 450 lunches 150 were served free to needy children.

Should the present trend of unemployment become greater, I am sure the State and local districts would find it difficult to further increase their financial contributions which have now reached the point of matching Federal contributions 7 to 1. It is my personal opinion that the continued trend of inadequate help under the national school-lunch program might result in the closing of a number of our type A lunch programs and that means many of the schools will be forced back on the old pattern of "candy and coke" lunches.

Twenty-nine of the States said there had been an increase in the price of lunches in many of their schools. Several of them knew that the increase in price meant fewer lunches sold, others had no data on that point, and I have spelled that out in the material I asked to be inserted in the record, Mr. Chairman.

Both Utah and New Mexico said that in some schools the increase in the price of the lunch had cut participation by one-third. From Colorado, we got this information:

Unless we get more cash and more commodities, our program will be serving only the well-to-do, and the children in greatest need will be priced right out of the program.

Mr. Chairman, these highlights I have just given you, and the detailed summary which I have filed with you brings to you what I consider a fairly complete story from the States. I think anything more I could tell you would be superfluous. You are going to hear from people in the program who are much more expert than I am. Certainly, I think the information as I get it from the States means that unless there is more money coming from the Federal Government or unless the States begin to contribute more, that the program is in a bad way.

As I say, there is undoubtedly need for increased Federal funds to keep the program going along the lines set forth in the act which created it. We urge you to do your best to provide them.

Mr. WHITTEN. We wish to thank both you and Mrs. Radue. You both expressed this in a fine way, both to the Congress and to the American public, as to the tight situation that exists under this

program.

We always enjoy and appreciate your appearances here.

Mrs. STOUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Griffin, we would be glad to hear from you. Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you.

Mr. WHITTEN. You may proceed any way you wish.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. S. GRIFFIN

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is indeed an honor and a privilege for me to come before you today as legislative chairman for the American School Food Service Association, an organization composed of approximately 14,000 people engaged in the activity of feeding the Nation's schoolchildren.

My remarks shall be addressed to the national school lunch program and the vital need for increased Federal assistance. The ASFSA is recommending an appropriation of $130 million, which is an increase of $30 million over the current appropriation. We consider this amount to be an absolute minimum if the program is to avoid disaster. We believe that the school lunch program will begin to disintegrate if the State agencies are compelled to lower further the rate of reimbursement for the type A lunch.

If schools must continue to increase the meal charge to the child, he will drop out of the lunch program and purchase reduced priced milk under the special milk program. Schools are receiving reimbursement at the rate of 4 cents per half-pint of milk under the special milk program which is more, in many instances, than they are receiving for a complete type A lunch. It doesn't make sense that the Federal Government should reimburse more for one half-pint of milk than for a complete lunch. I am not criticizing the special milk program, but merely making a comparison.

I should like to call your attention to schedule 1 which is attached to this statement. This schedule shows precisely what has happened to the school lunch program over the past 10 years. Although participation in the program has increased by 202.9 percent, the Federal appropriation has increased by only 23.5 percent. The average rate of reimbursement has decreased from 8.7 cents per meal to 4.7 cents, through 1956-57. I understand that the average rate this school session is 4.3; and if more money is not made available, the average rates will very likely fall below 4 cents in school session 1959–60.

If Congress should see fit to provide the level of support that was furnished in 1946-47, it would take an appropriation of $165 million, and this does not take into consideration the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. It is our ardent hope that Congress will see fit to support the program at a level comniensurate with its growth. There are those who maintain that the support of the school lunch program should be taken over by the States. This may sound good in theory but those of us on the State level are too well aware of the troubles that the States are having now in adequately financing existing programs of education.

In my own State, it would be next to impossible to find revenue to support adequately the school lunch program. The school lunch program provides a means of Federal support for education without the usual fear of interference as to instruction and curriculum.

However, even without direct State appropriations for school lunch, the State and local contributions to the program have far surpassed the requirements set forth in the National School Lunch Act.

If Federal support in cash assistance had kept pace with State and local contributions, the program would be adequately financed. Schedule 2 of the attachments shows that, exclusive of children's pay