NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TABLE I-A.-Analyses of source of funds, matching requirements, and participation in the program, fiscal year 1947 (1st year) and fiscal years 1960-63 1 Participation in the type C lunch decreased rapidly after enactment of the special milk program in 1955. To show comparability, funds and participation have been adjusted by the type C contributions. 2 Preliminary. PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM Mr. NATCHER. What is the total participation in the program, both as to the number of schools and the number of children, Mr. Davis? Mr. DAVIS. Our estimate for 1963 would be around 65,000 schools, and about 15 million children. Mr. NATCHER. How does this compare with previous years? Mr. DAVIS. The 1962 figures, as I recall, were about 14.2, and the number of schools was somewhat less, around 64,000. Mr. NATCHER. At this point in the record, I will insert table 1 of the justifications, volume 2. (The table follows:) SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TABLE I-Source of funds including special milk, matching requirements, and participation in the program, fiscal year 1947 (1st year) and fiscal years 1960–63 5. Foods bought in local markets with Federal cash payments and State contributions. 6. Total appropriation .. $128, 648, 278 $539, 500,000 $575,000,000 $600, 000, 000 $635, 000, 000 $81,000,000 $153, 657, 248 $155,000,000 $170,000,000 $170,000,000 1 Represents year in which commodities were distributed; not necessarily year in which funds were obligated. 1 State matching requirements per Federal dollar are as follows: 1947-50, $1 to $1; 1951-55, $1.50 to $1; thereafter $3 to $1 except that for States with per capita income below the national average the ratio required is decreased by the percentage which the State per capita income is below the per capita income of the United States. Lowest matching requirement for 1947-50 was $0.46 to $1; for 1951-55, $0.73 to $1.50; for 1956-60, $1.41 to $3; 1961, $1.54 to $3; and 1962, $1.59 to $3. Not available. • Beginning in 1959 excludes schools serving only type C lunches. Includes funds authorized to be transferred from sec. 32 for the purchase and distribution of agricultural commodities. FORMULA CHANGES BY PUBLIC LAW 87-823 Mr. NATCHER. Discuss changes in formulas for cash assistance made by Public Law 87-823, which was adopted last session. Mr. DAVIS. The essential change is that in the new formula the actual participation last year will be used as part of the ratio in place of the previous figure for school-age population in the State. To try to make that a little clearer, under the new amendment we take the number of meals served in a State during the last school year and that, together with the per capita income of the State in relation to the national average taken together and used as a quotient against the total appropriation determines the money for each State. Mr. NATCHER. Do you believe that this meets the problems in needy areas, the change in formula? Mr. DAVIS. It has resulted in apportioning the money much more equitably among the States in relation to the number of meals that they are serving in that State. Previously the formula penalized, actually, the State that had had a very vigorous program, and had brought a number of children into the program. The more they brought in, the less they got per child. Under this formula, the money that is available to the State is related to the number of children for whom they are furnishing meals. This year, when the formula was applied for the first time-and I might say that under the law we apportion only 25 percent of the money for this current year under the new formula and 75 under the old to provide a transition from the old to the new-there will be quite a variance in the amount of money individual States will get under the new formula. Next year this will be 50 percent under the old formula and 50 percent under the new formula. Going back to your specific question, this first year of the new formula there were some States which received quite a bit more money than they had received last year. Due to the lateness both of passage of the law and of the appropriations they did not integrate this new money into their regular program. A number of States used the additional funds that became available to them after they had set their rates for this year, to provide extra assistance to needy schools. In those particular instances it was quite helpful in meeting this need for the very needy schools. But this will be a temporary effect. This is why we are asking for $2 million to inaugurate a special assistance program for these special needy schools. We have found over the years that there were a number of schools which were too poor to take advantage of the Federal assistance to start a Federal school lunch program. The new amendment (section 11) would authorize enough money in some of these States to take care of these specially needy schools. With the $2 million requested for 1964, we feel we will be able to make a start in that direction. Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Addabbo? ELIGIBILITY OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR MILK AND LUNCH FUNDS Mr. ADDABBO. On the special milk program and the school lunch. program, is this program open to all schools, private, and otherwise? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. In those States where by State law the State educational agency is prohibited from disbursing money to private schools, the Department, through our Division, handles those schools directly. So that all schools are eligible for the program, private and public. Mr. ADDABBO. The contribution by the Government, does that go directly to the State or to the various school units? Mr. DAVIS. It goes to the States in the case of the public schools, and also where the State handles the private schools. In those instances in those States where we administer the program directly to the private schools-the money goes directly from us to the schools. Mr. ADDABBO. Would you have a table showing the various breakdowns as to each State as to how much aid was given to each State, as far as the school milk program and the school lunch program? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir, we would be very happy to put those in. research Mr. NATCHER. Without objection, table 2, Mr. Addabbo, at your request, will be inserted at this point. (The table requested follows:) NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TABLE II.-Apportionment by States of funds available for the national school lunch program, fiscal year 1963 TABLE II.-Apportionment by States of funds available for the national school lunch program, fiscal year 1963-Continued 1 Sec. 4 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended by Public Law 87-823, approved Oct. 15, 1962 * provides for apportionment among the States during each fiscal year not less than 75 percent of the funds made available for supplying agricultural commodities and other foods. "State" is defined in the act as any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American Samoa. Apportionment among the States shall be made on the basis of two factors: (1) the participation rate for the State and (2) the assistance need rate for the State (exclusive of American Samoa for the 5-fiscal-year periods beginning July 1, 1962, and ending June 30, 1967, when the amount apportioned to American Samoa shall be $25,000 each year). Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of sec. 4, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1962, 34 of any funds available for apportionment among the States shall be apportioned in the manner used prior to such fiscal year, and 4 of any such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with the foregoing provisions of sec. 4. Total of funds apportioned in accordance with sec. 4 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended. Division of funds between State agency and private schools is based on the relative number of lunches served in public and nonprofit private schools as provided in sec. 10 of the National School Lunch Act for any State in which the State educational agency by law is not permitted to disburse funds paid to it under the act to nonprofit private schools. Sec. 7 of the National School Lunch Act provides that, during fiscal year 1963, each State must match $3 for each $1 of the Federal Government's apportionment to the State, except that, in the case of a State in which the per capita income is below that of the United States, the matching ratio required is decreased by the percentage which the State's per capita income is below the per capita income of the United States. The actual amount of funds required for matching is then determined by taking this percentage of the amount of the total Federal apportionment to the State. NOTE.-Details of apportionment under original formula and revised formula shown in tables SL-1b-63 and SL-1c-63. PLANNING OF FOOD WHOLESALING MARKETS Mr. ADDABBO. On page 65 of your notes you state: "The largest and probably most difficult job ever undertaken by the Department is planning of food wholesaling markets in the metropolitan areas, with the planning in the New York City market, and this has been accomplished.” Was this requested by the city or State, the research as far as development of these facilities? Mr. SMITH. The city officials made the request. The officials of the city government of New York were very active in sponsoring |