not fully understood their responsibilities. The efficiency of the site staff is critical to the effectiveness of a sponsor's operation since the site must keep accurate records to document reimbursements claimed by the sponsor. Since the Summer Food Service Program only operates during summer months often at unstructured feeding sites, it is more difficult to administer than the other child nutrition programs. In addition, for the past couple of years there has been little or no increase in participation levels but the cost of administering the program has steadily increased. If the Summer Food Service Program is eliminated, many of the truly needy participants who already receive benefits under the Food Stamp Program would continue to receive federal aid for food assistance. SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM Mr. WHITTEN. On three previous occasions-Public Law 93-150 Public Law 95-166, and Public Law 95-627-Congress has addressed the question of including schools which participate in other meal programs in the Special Milk Program. Given the history of Congressional action, how realistic is a proposal in the revised budget to totally eliminate these schools from the program? Mr. DICKEY. Cutbacks in the Special Milk Program have been proposed by every President since Lyndon Johnson. All of USDA's child nutrition programs contain specific food requirements which include milk as a beverage. Thus, under the proposal in the budget, children who currently have milk available to them at meal time will still have milk available through the other child nutrition programs. Congress, on December 5, 1980, enacted Public Law 96499, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, wherein the rate of reimbursement per half-pint of milk served to children ineligible for free milk in schools and institutions participating in meal service programs under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 is reduced to five cents. Congress has already recognized these schools as different from Special Milk Program only schools and suited to different treatment. Mr. WHITTEN. You state that during fiscal year 1980, FNS directly administered the Special Milk Program in 19 states, in which either the state was forbidden by law to disburse funds to private schools and institutions or in which no state agency is willing to operate the program. Please provide for the record a table which will show which states are forbidden by law, which states have no state agency willing to operate the program, and the cost for your direct administration of the Special Milk Program in each of these States. Mr. DICKEY. The cost for our direct administration of the Special Milk Program cannot be accurately determined as there is no separate accounting system by program, or by state. Staff and equipment are utilized across the board for many programs. Our best estimate would be a total cost of two and one-half staff years nationwide. The regional offices administer the Special Milk Program in states where there is a legal prohibition forbidding the state agency from disbursing funds to private schools and institutions, or simply not required to administer the Special Milk Program, nor give > reasons for its refusal to do so. We, therefore, have no accurate way - of determining a particular state's reason for not administering the program and, for this reason, the reasons will not be included in the table submitted for the record. The table we will submit lists for 19 states in which FNS directly -administers the Special Milk Program. You will note that, in all states, the state agency or alternate state agency operates the program in at least some schools. [The information follows:] Mr. WHITTEN. During fiscal year 1979, this program served 1,857 million half-pints of milk. During fiscal year 1980, it served 1,852 million half-pints. The estimate for 1981 is 1,718 million half-pints, and the estimate for 1982 under current legislation is 1,707 million half-pints. What accounts for the 7 percent decrease in the number of half-pints served between 1980 and 1981? Under existing legislation, how does the decrease which you project for the number of half-pints served in 1982 correspond with any change in school age population? Mr. DICKEY. The major reason for the decline in the Special Milk Program in fiscal year 1981 is a lowering and freezing of the reimbursement rate at five cents for milk served to paying students in schools with other federal nutrition programs under a permanent provision in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980. This change, which reduces the subsidy for milk served to children from higher income families, results in higher milk prices at the school. We believe that those higher prices will cause students to purchase fewer half-pints of milk than in the past. However, once this effect is accounted for in fiscal year 1981, we would anticipate a resumption of the more moderate trend of decline-namely, one percent or less-in participation, with an eventual leveling off. 77-302 (Pt 4B) O-1--36 Mr. WHITTEN. The revised budget proposes legislation that would save $95.0 million in 1982, or a reduction of 76 percent. How many half-pints of milk would be served at this funding level? Please separately identify paid and free. Mr. DICKEY. At this funding level, we expect to serve about 278.4 million half-pints of milk in fiscal year 1982. Of this amount, about 34.9 million will be served free to needy children and 243.5 million will be served to paying children. Mr. WHITTEN. Please provide tables similar to those which appear on pages 152 and 153 of the notes, which will display your current estimates of the performance of the Special Milk Program, by state, in 1982 at the revised funding levels. Mr. DICKEY. We will be happy to provide the tables that you requested reflecting the Special Milk Program performance estimates under the proposed fiscal year 1982 budget. These tables will show the estimated number of participating outlets and obligations by state and the estimated half-pints of milk to be served in fiscal year 1982. The estimated outlets are based on a 1977 survey of schools and residential child care institutions. These outlets exclude nonresidential child care institutions and summer camps, for which we have no data available. [The information follows:] SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM-NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING OUTLETS AND OBLIGATIONS BY STATE 10 179 SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM-HALF-PINTS OF MILK SERVED-Continued SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (WIC) Mr. WHITTEN. You state that the WIC program's impact on infant mortality, chronic ill-health, birth defects, and subnormal development averts major medical expenditures and reduces outlays in programs such as Medicaid, SSI for Disabled, and Special Education. What is your estimate of the increased cost of therapeutic health care in these safety net programs that this Nation will have to bear as a result of the proposed 30-percent reduction in the preventive health care provided through the WIC program? Mr. DICKEY. The Department cannot develop an estimate of the increased therapeutic health care costs that will be incurred as a result of a 30-percent reduction in WIC funds without knowing what proportions of women, infants and children will be affected by the cutbacks. States and individual WIC projects will not reduce caseload in a homogenous manner. However, the Department is assuming that children will be eliminated from the program before pregnant women and infants, since children generally are considered to be at less nutritional risk than are pregnant women and infants. Mr. WHITTEN. The WIC Program provides funds to state agencies, to Indian groups, and to the Indian Health Service. What proportion of your funds are distributed to these three groups? You estimate that in fiscal year 1981, the program is expected to reach an average of 2,192,100 participants each month. How are these participants distributed among the three groups to whom you make funds available? Describe the necessary coordination between USDA and IHS in regard to the proposed revisions to the 1982 |