Their Daily Bread - A Study of the National School Lunch Program

    A Study of the 
National School Lunch Program 



THEIR DAILY BREAD 
Florence Robin, Director 

COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL LUNCH PARTICIPATION 

Chairman: Jean Fairfax 

Sponsoring Organizations: 

Church Women United 
National Board of the Y. W. C. A. 
National Council of Catholic Women 
National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of Negro Women 

~18 



Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-27171 

Produced by 

McNELLEY-RUDD PRINTING SERVICE !NO. 

Atlanta, Georgia 

TABLE OF 
CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 

I. 

II. 

m. 

IV. 

INTRODUCTION 

OUR HUNGRY SCHOOL CHILDREN 
There are six million school-age children in this country from 
families at the rock-bottom of poverty. But fewer than two 
million children receive free or reduced price lunches in the 
National School Lunch Program. We found children who are 
not getting their daily bread. We found hungry children. 

WHICH CHILD IS NEEDY? 
The lack of guidelines together with the present system of 
financing results in a crazy-quilt pattern for determining need. 
A child eligible in one school district for a free lunch would 
not necessarily receive one in the neighboring town. Indeed 
eligibility standards may vary from school to school and it is 
not unusual that in the same family one child may eat while 
his brother does not. 

"EVERYBODY KNOWS THEIR NAMES" 
Contrary to USDA Regulations, children receiving free or 
reduced price lunches are of ten identified and are made to feel 
the stigma of proverty. Poor children are denied both privacy 
and dignity. 

FINANCING THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 
The financing of the School Lunch Program is totally in­
adequate. Most states and communities do not contribute to 
the program out of taxes. Thus, schools where the children 
cannot fully support the program either have to leave the pro­
gram or cannot supply the needed number of free and reduced 
price lunches. Increasing cost means an increasing number 
of schools dropping out. The provisions of the School Lunch 
Act designed to help such schools are not used consistently and 
are funded inadequately. 

PAGE 

1 

. 13 

. 22 

. 33 

. 37 



CHAPTER 

v. 

VI. 

"TOO POOR TO SUPPORT A CAFETERIA" 
One of the causes of low participation in the School Lunch 
Program is that slum schools often do not have facilities. Thus, 
the children who need lunch the most are denied it. Parents 
of these children as well as those who speak for the whole 
community are expressing their resentment about this more 
and more. 

HIGH PRICE EQUALS LOW PARTICIPATION . 
Increases in price also affect participation. The National School 
Lunch Program may be pricing itself out of existence. 

PAGE 

. 51 

. 57 

VII. TEENAGE TASTES . 62 
Adolescent eating habits, of ten cited as causing a decline in 
participation, are not a major factor. But some schools, by 
instituting a la carte service or vending machines, are encourag-
ing teenagers to buy more expensive and less nutritious meals. 

VIII. EFFORTS TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION . 68 
Some states and communities are making commendable efforts 
to increase participation. But lack of long-range planning and 
research handicaps their efforts. 

IX. DONATED COMMODITIES 78 
Donated commodities play an important role in the School 
Lunch Program and deserve praise for their high nutritional 
content. But their unpredictability and their decreasing dollar 
value raise questions about how much the program should 
depend on them. 

x. ESEA TO TIIE RESCUE 88 
Funds from Title I of ESEA and other Federal programs 
provide substantial assistance for meals for needy children. But 
lack of coordination and some hostility between administrators 
of these programs and Schools Lunch Directors often under-
mine the effectiveness of these efforts. 

XI. BREAKFASTATSCHOOL. 98 
Most educators welcome breakfast programs, but a few have 
resisted them. Only half of the funds allocated for breakfasts 
under the Child Nutrition Act were used during the first year. 

CHAPTER 

XII. 

XIII. 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL LUNCH 

PROGRAM· · · · · · · 
USDA's Regulations concerning personnel ~ta'!dards and prr 

m su ervision and review are too permissive. A~ a resu t, 
!'Jminist~ative practices among the states are arbitrary and 
differ to a wide extent. 

LOS ANGELES: OUT OF IT · 
After 21 years of growth, the National School Lunhh Pfirogra.l 
is developing its own drop-out problem because of t e nanc1a 
squeeze Few school districts have dropped out as yet but the 
Los Angeles story may be a harbinger of the future. 

PAGE 

. 104 

. 114 

XIV. RECOMMENDATIONS . .. 120 

APPENDIX: HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE · 

CHARTS 

FREE LUNCHES AND POVERTY LEVEL 

FINANCING WITHIN THE STATE · · 

EXTRA ASSISTANCE . 

COMMUNITIES: METHOD OF FINANCING AND 

PERCENTAGE FREE & REDUCED PRICE LUNCHES 

PARTICIPATION (BY STATE) . 

PARTICIPATION (BY COMMUNITY) 

FOOD CoMMODITIES RECEIVED BY SCHOOLS 

CmLD NUTRITION ACT (BREAKFAST PROGRAM) 

. 128 

14 
38 
44 

47 
69 
70 
86 

. 100 



INTRODUCTION 

Poverty is not a uniquely American disease, but Americans have 
a uniquely optimistic way of dealing with it. In the twenty years from 
the end of World War Il to the mid-sixties, we hid our disease in the 
attic of the national consciousness and almost convinced ourselves that 
it did not exist. We concealed it with phrases like "the affluent society" 
and "the highest living standard in the world," and we covered it with 
booming production, consumption and employment statistics. We ex­
ported the goal of American prosperity to under-developed nations. 

But poverty would not be concealed. One of the chief by-products 
of the civil rights movement was the revelation to middle-class America 
of the existence of an under-developed nation right here--millions of 
Americans, black and white, living in a shadow world of bare subsis­
tence. This "Other America" is with us, but not in our midst. Unlike 
the one-third of a nation ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed during the 
Depression, poor people are no longer visible to middle-class America. 
It is possible for a suburban family to live its entire life without ever 
meeting a poor person. 

So that while we have finally been forced to acknowledge the ex­
istence of wide-spread poverty-and indeed have declared a national 
War on Poverty-there is an unreality bred by distance about our 
acknowledgment. 

This unreality pervades not only our awareness of the problem, 
but our assessment of the methods created to deal with the problem. 
It is more reassuring and easier for us to believe uncritically that if a 
program is adopted to deal with employment or housing or welfare, 
then solutions to the problem are on the way, and we need trouble our 
minds and consciences no further. 

This attitude applies with special force to the National School 
Lunch Program. Because it is one of the oldest social benefit programs 
in this country, and because it operates smoothly in a well-established 
mechanism for its administration, most Americans accept the present 

1 



functioning of the program without complaint, believing that it ade­
quately meets the need for which it was created. It is easy to under­
stand why they believe this. 

The National School Lunch Program last year celebrated its 
twenty-first birthday. During its life, it has won wide aceptance from 
educators and nutritionists. The members of both professions feel, with 
few exceptions, that there is a direct relationship between adequate 
nutrition and good scholastic performance, discipline in the classroom 
and constructive social attitudes. Hungry children are inattentive chil­
dren, educators believe, and inattentive children cannot learn. 

The Congress which originally created the National School Lunch 
Program in 1946 recognized the importance of a good lunch to the 
school child and passed legislation "to safeguard the health and well­
being of the Nation's children." To achieve this goal, the Program was 
"to supply lunches without cost or at a reduced cost to all children 
who are determined by local authorities to be unable to pay the full 
price thereof'' without discrimination. 

Because of this wide-spread recognition of the value of the National 
School Lunch Program, most of middle-class America believes that the 
sc~ool lunch is universally available. If you were to question, as we did, 
nuddle-class acquaintances or neighbors about their understanding of 
how the S~hool Lunch Program operates, they would likely reply: "Oh, 
all the children get that," or, "That's to give needy children a good 
lunch," or, "All the kids get it, but the ones who can't afford it don't 
have to pay." 

But in these comfortable assumptions-as in so many others­
we are unrealistic. The facts show otherwise: 

1. Of 50 mjllion public elementary and secondary school children, 
only about 18 million participate in the National School Lunch Pro­
gram. Two out of three children do not participate. 

2. Of 50 million school children, fewer than two million, just 
under four per cent, are able to get a free or reduced price school lunch. 

3. Whether or not a child is eligible for a free lunch is determined 
not by any universally accepted formula, but by local decisions about 
admi~istration and financing which may or may not have anything to 
do wzth the need of the individual child. And generally speaking, the 
greater the need of children from a poor neighborhood, the less the 
community is able to meet it. 

2 

These three facts, while perhaps not generally known, are well 
understood by school lunch administrators. What has not been compre­
hensively studied heretofore is why so few children participate in the 
National School Lunch Program or are denied the opportunity to par­
ticipate, and why the School Lunch Program is failing to meet the needs 
of poor children. 

This study was undertaken to find out why. It is peculiarly appro­
priate that these particular organizations have sponsored this particular 
study. All five sponsors are women's organizations and have a special 
affinity for the needs of children. 

All five organizations have a religious orientation or connection, 
so their concern for social problems is neither that of a useful political 
tool or a passing fancy. 

And most important, all five-sometimes working cooperatively, 
sometimes separately-have had practical experience on the local level 
dealing with the great social issues of our day: the problems of the 
aged, of children, of employment, education, housing, race relations. 

The Appendix sets forth in detail how this study was organized 
and conducted, how the communities to be studied were selected, and 
who participated in conducting the studies. 

All the material used in this study, except that which is specifically 
identified as coming from outside sources, was gathered by personal in­
terviews using questionnaires specifically designed for this study. These 
interviews, more than 1,500 of them, form the basis for our conclusions 
about the National School Lunch Program. 

The method of personal interviewing has been a great strength 
of the study, since it enabled the volunteer to talk directly with the school 
lunch administrator, principal, class room teacher and parent involved 
in school lunches in a local school, and to see the program in actual 
operation for herself. But it also leads to some contradictory statistics, 
since the volunteer did not attempt to evaluate the material herself, or 
to reconcile the figures given by one school official with conflicting 
figures given by another. 

But in spite of some conflicting or confusing findings, the larger 
conclusions of the study are inescapable. We set them forth below, and 
discuss, document and analyze each in the chapters that follow: 

1. The National School Lunch Program is inadequately financed 
on the Federal level, and the gap between the available Federal money 
and the needs of the Program grows bigger every year. 

3 



2. The formula for state and local financing which allows states 
and localities to contribute little or no financial support to the National 
School Lunch Program is both unjust and harmful to the operation of 
the program. 

In many states, Federal money and Federal commodities pay for 
one-third of the child's lunch and the children themselves pay for two­
thirds, which includes not only the food on their plates, but the salaries 
of state and local school administrators, cooks and food handlers, the 
storage and transportation of the food, and the cost of free and reduced 
price lunches for needy children who cannot afford to pay. 

3. The lack of a uniform method of determining who shall be 
eligible for a free or reduced price lunch results in unequal and unfair 
decisions on the local level. A child eligible in one community for a 
free lunch might not be eligible in a neighboring town; eligible in one 
school, he might be disqualified in a neighboring school. Even in the 
same family, one child may be eligible and his brother or sister may be 
declared ineligible. This lack of standards presents conscientious educa­
tors with choices they should not be forced to make. It fosters resent­
ment and distrust on the part of needy parents. 

4. Many older schools do not participate in the School Lunch 
Program because they were built without kitchens or cafeterias. Some 
do not participate because it would not "pay" to have a kitchen or 
cafeteria, i.e., the children's payments could not cover the cost of the 
program. Both types of schools are almost invariably located in slums. 
This means that the slum child, who needs good nutrition most, has 
the least chance of getting a school lunch. 

Around these basic inadequacies, several cherished myths have 
arisen which tend to obscure the problems and to inhibit constructive 
solutions of them: 

1. "No child who is hungry goes without lunch." We beard this 
over and over again from school lunch administrators. This is true in 
many schools where concerned principals and generous teachers work 
out emergency ways of paying for lunches, often out of their own pockets. 
But thousands and thousands of children watch their classmates eat 
while they sit in the cafeteria, not eligible for a free lunch and too poor 
to buy one. 

2. "Teen-age eating habits account in large part for low partici­
pation in the school lunch program." Teenagers, according to a press 
release of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), "find 
it the 'in' thing to do to subsist on soft drinks and candy bars. They've 

4 

th ·gbt problems to prove it." No comprehensive survey bas been 
got e we1 d · di t 
done to find out why participation is so low, but our stu y m ca es 
that teen-age eating habits are a small part of the problem. 

Certainly a vigorous educational campaign needs to be unde~~en 
t ach teen-agers- and all children-the value of good nutntion. 

:h e 1 boards which permit the installation of soft drink and snack 
oh~ m· pu,blic schools as a money-making device, could also benefit 

mac mes · 1 · hi 
from such an educational campaign. ~d surely there ~ a re ations P 
b tween participation and bow attractively the food is prepared and 
e d But all of these factors our study indicates, are less important serve . ' 

to participation than how many children can afford the lunch. 

3. "It is better for young children to eat lunch at home. This is 
one of the benefits of the neighborhood school idea." This is only true 
when the child who goes home to eat lunch gets a lunch to eat. But 
thousands of slum children come home for lunch to an empty house 
and a bare refrigerator. 

4. "Children who are getting a free or reduced price lunch .can­
not be identified by the other children." Thi~ is a requirement see~gly 
implied by the legislation and touched on b~ the USDA re~~tions. 
Every State School Lunch Director we interviewed felt certain it was 
being followed. Some schools have indeed worked out careful systems 
to avoid humiliating free lunch children. But the majority of them have 
no such procedures, and quite a few, by using special tickets and tokens 
for needy children, have guaranteed their identification by classmates. 
We found many children, especially teen-agers, who would rather go 
hungry than eat under these circumstances. 

These are the broad conclusions reached in this study. There are, 
of course, many other elements in the National School Lunch Program, 
and they, too, will be discussed in the chapters which follow. Among 
them are Federal programs, in and out of the National School Lunch 
Program, which provide special assistance to feed needy children; the 
role of donated commodities in the National School Lunch Program; 
and a consideration of the professional qualifications of school lunch 
personnel. 

In a program such as this, which is not fulfilling its potential, there 
is a tendency to try to assign the blame to particular individuals or 
groups for its inadequacies. But succumbing to this easy temptation in 
this case would be unjust. Members of this Committee and the writer, 
who have dealt with school lunch officials at the Department of Agricul­
ture, have been impressed with how hardworking and cooperative they 

5 



are. Among State School Lunch Directors, there is a high percentag .. 
of dedicated public servants. Similarly, in the local communities we 
studied, we encountered cooperation and concern on every side--from 
School Lunch Directors to principals and classroom teachers. 

Not every official we met was a paragon, of course. But whatever 
shortcomings there are in the School Lunch Program lie not in the indi­
viduals charged with responsibility for it, but in the system which limits, 
and sometimes even prohibits, their effective functioning. 

How that system operates is the subject of this inquiry. The fol­
lowing thirteen chapters describe what our volunteers found. Chapter 
XIV is a series of recommendations for Federal, state and local action 
set forth in some detail and dealing with all aspects of the National 
School Lunch Program. 

Our chief recommendation calls for a universal, free school lunch 
program as part of a long-range plan for better nutrition for all chil­
dren. But until such a total program is developed, the following recom­
mendations are designed to make the present system work: 

1. Reduce the maximum price of the school lunch to 20¢ and 
provide free lunches for all children who cannot afford to pay. 

2. Raise the federal contribution to keep pace with the growing 
needs of the National School Lunch Program. 

3. Create a new matching formula for the states to insure that 
they bear some of the financial burden, relieving the children of paying 
for salaries, administration, food handling, and the cost of the free and 
reduced price lunch program. 

4. Set uniform standards of eligibility for free and reduced price 
lunches to end the haphazard and inequitable present system. 

In order to understand the study, some of our readers may wish 
to refresh their memory of how the National School Lunch Program 
operates, and what the various terms, which will be used throughout 
our report, mean. What follows is a brief summary of the legislation 
and Regulations governing the School Lunch Program. It is excerpted 
from the kit of materials prepared for our volunteers who conducted the 
state and local interviews. 

SOME FACTS ABOUT 
THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 

The National School Lunch Program currently operates under 
legislation passed in 1946 and amended in 1962 and entitled the 

6 

. onal School Lunch Act. This legislation grew out of various Fed~ral 
Nati "din urplus commodities. and cash in the late Depression programs proVI g s . . S 
d Today all states the District of Columbia, A.mencan amoa, 
c::~. Puedo Rico, and the Virgin Islands participate in the Program. 
Here are its most important features: 

PURPOSE: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congr:ss, as 
Of nati·onal security to safeguard the health and well-bemg of a measure ' . · f 

the Nation's children, and to encourage the domestic .co.nsumption o 
tritious agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the States, 

:ough grants-in-aid and other means, in ~roviding ~ adequate supply 

f foods and other facilities for the establishment, mamtenance, opera-
o h ,, 
tion and expansion of non-profit school lune programs. 

The Act provides this assistance by Federal contributions of both 
cash and agricultural commodities to each state. 

ADMINISTRATION: On the Federal level, the program is admin­
istered by the United States Department of Agriculture through its c;o~­
sumer and Marketing Service, School Lunch Division. In each state, It is 
administered by the state educational agency-State Board of Educa­
tion, as it is usually called. Most states have set up a School Lunch 
Division for this purpose. 

STATE ALLOCATION FORMULA: The Act prescribes a form­
ula for distribution of cash assistance to the states. The formula is based 
on (a) the number of school lunches served the previous year in each 
state; and (b) the assistance need rate of the state. 

The assistance rate is based on a comparison between the average 
per capita income within the state and the average per capita .inc~me in 
the United States as a whole. When the state average per capita mcome 
falls below that of the United States, the extent to which it does deter­
mines, within certain limits, the correspendingly higher amounts of cash 
assistance to which that state is entitled. 

In addition assistance in the form of donated commodities is allo­
cated to each st~te based on the number of lunches served in the state 
the previous year. (See Commodities Program below~. If any st~te 
cannot use all the funds allocated to it, the unused portion may be dis­
tributed to the other states on the same basis described above. 

MATCHING FUNDS: The Federal cash contribution must be 
matched by funds from sources within each state on the basis of $3 .of 
state money for $1 of Federal money. But those states whose per capita 
income is less than that of the United States have this ratio reduced. 

7 



However, since the state's matching funds include the money the 
children themselves pay for their lunches-which is about two-thirds of 
the cash amount of the Program-no state bas ever had any difficulty 
meeting this requirement. 

Other sources included in the state's matching funds are state and 
local government funds, except funds used for school construction and 
private charitable donations. ' 

The state is not required to match the value of commodities donated 
by the Federal Government. 

PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS: The Act requires that all 
s~bools wishing to participate in the National School Lunch Program must 
sign an agreement with the state educational agency that they will operate 
a non-profit school lunch program which: 

(a) Meets minimum nutritional standards for a Type A luncb­
a specified amount of protein-rich foods, vegetables and fruit, 
bread, butter or margarine, and milk; 

(b) Complies with state and local health and sanitation standards· 
' ( c) Supplies lunches free or at reduced price and without dis-

crimination to all children who are determined by local school 
authorities to be unable to pay the full price. 

EXTRA ASSISTANCE: Agriculture Department Regulations au­
thorize--but do not require--the state educational agency to allocate out 
of its general school lunch funds extra money to those schools which have 
~ high proportion of children unable to pay for lunch. The Federal limit 
~n non-needy schools is up to 9¢ a lunch. In needy schools, the state 
is empowered to reimburse up to 15¢ a lunch. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE: The reimbursement rate described above 
must come out of general school lunch funds. In addition the Act 
authorizes in Section 11 (one of the features added in the 1962 amended 
Act) the appropriation by Congress of funds over and above the regular 
amount to provide special assistance to needy schools. 

These Sec. 11 "Special Assistance" funds are distributed to the 
~tate on the basis of the number of free or reduced price lunches served 
Ill the state the previous year and on the assistance need rate of the state. 

. .NON-FO<?D ASSISTANCE: The Act authorizes Federal appro­
priations to assist schools in purchasing equipment with which to set up 
lu~ch programs-stoves, refrigerators, etc. But Congress bas not appro­
pnated any non-food assistance funds under the School Lunch Act since 
1946. 

8 

NON-PROFIT PRIVATE SCHOOLS: These schools may par­
. · t · the Federal program but where a state is prohibited by state 

ttcipa em ' . 
statute from making allocations to non-profit .pnvate schools, e.g., 

arochial schools, the Federal Government may wiUi?old from that state 
~e amount which the private schools would receive, and make the 

Fed al contribution directly to the private schools. In such cases, the 
er . f . . fr 

private schools must adhere to all the regulations or nutntion, ee 
lunches, program review, matching funds, etc., e~en thou~h they are not 
dealing with the state educational agency, but directly with the Federal 

Government. 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: The Act requires the state educa­

tional agency to review at least one-third of the schools participating every 
year to assist the local manager in improving her op~r~tion, to make sure 
they are meeting nutritional standards and ar~ prov1drng free or reduced 
price lunches to needy children, and to determrne the adequacy and accu-

racy of their records. 

OTHER SCHOOL LUNCH LEGISLATION 

COMMODITIES PROGRAM: Almost thirty years ago, the Fed­
eral Government began distributing surplus commodities to state welfare 
agencies, which in turn distributed them to charitable institutions and 
schools. The School Lunch Act continued this commodity distribution. 
But unlike the cash assistance part of the program, the state educational 
agency is not necessarily the agency in the state which distributes the 
commodities. Each state designates the agency within the state to dis­
tribute commodities. It may be the state educational agency, but it may 
also be the state Welfare Department, the state Agriculture Department, 
or some other agency, or a combination of agencies. 

In any case, the decision about the amount of commodities allocated 
to the schools in the state is not made by the distributing agency, but by 
a formula prescribed by the Federal Government based on previous 

participation in the program. 

Commodities available for school lunch programs are of three types: 

(a) SEC. 32 SURPLUS FOODS: Surplus foods are purchased by 
the Federal Government when supply exceeds commercial 
demand. The funds for purchasing these foods come from 
customs receipts on imported foods, and thus do not depend on 
yearly Congressional appropriations. 

(b) SEC. 416 PRICE SUPPORT FOODS: These foods are pur­
chased by the Department of Agriculture to carry out price 

9 



support programs established by Congress for certain basic 
agricultural products. They are paid for with funds appropri­
ted for price support purposes, and not funds appropriated 
for the National School Lunch Program. 

(c) SEC. 6 SPECIAL FOODS: In addition, the 1946 Act au­
thorized the Federal purchase and donation to the states of 
special foods over and above the available surplus and price 
support commodities. 
These special foods were authorized to insure the good nutri­
tional balance of school lunches, which could not be guaranteed 
if the commodities were limited to the haphazard supply of 
only surplus and price support foods. 

SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM: Previously under separate legis­
lation, the Department of Agriculture provided Federal payments for 
each half-pint of milk served to children at reduced price in schools, 
pre-school groups and child-care institutions. In the schools, this does 
not include the half-pint which is served as part of the Type A school 
lunch. The special milk payments apply only to second or third half­
pints and to milk served separately from the school lunch. 

Schools may participate in both the National School Lunch Pro­
gram and the Special Milk Program, or they may participate in one and 
not the other. Many more schools are in the milk program than in the 
lunch program. 

Under the special assistance section of the milk legislation, free 
milk is authorized for needy children attending schools classified as 
especially needy. 

Administration for public and private (parochial) schools and 
child-care institutions is the same for the milk program as for the lunch 
program described previously. 

As noted, the Special Milk Program operated under separate leg­
islation. But since 1966, it has been incorporated into the Child Nutri­
tion Act of 1966. 

CIIlLD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966: Pilot breakfast programs 
in needy schools and schools to which children must travel long dis­
tances are being funded by the Federal Government under this Act. It 
uses the same apportionment formula as the National School Lunch Act, 
although an initial amount is apportioned equally among the states. 

However, so far as donated commodities are concerned, the states 

10 

limited to using Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods in the breakfast pro-
are · 6f d · · 

S and may not use the more desrrable Sec. oo s m it. gram, 
Like the National School Lunch Act, the C~d Nutrition ~ct 

authorizes appropriations for non-food assistance (equ1pme~t) to assISt 
needy schools. For the first year, 1966-6~, Congr~~s appropnated $750,-
000 for non-food assistance under the Child Nutntion Act. 

The pilot breakfast program is authorized for only rn:o years. Sin:e 
the Federal money for it did not become available until the last six 
months of the school year, less than $1 million of the $2 million appro­
priated for 1966-67 was used. 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT 
(ESEA): Under Title I of ESEA, local school dis~ricts may un~ertake 
a variety of projects to meet the needs of areas with concen1;1"~tions of 
children from low-income families. Some schools are proVIding free 
school lunches funded by Title I. This program is under the jurisdiction 
of the Office of Education of the U.S. Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare, not the Department of Agriculture. (When we mention 
ESEA in the text, we are ref erring to Title I. ) 

11 



1 
·' 

OUR HUNGRY 
SCHOOL CHILDREN 

As noted in the Introduction, the most cherished myth about the 
National School Lunch Program is that no child who really needs a 
lunch is allowed to go hungry. 

We say flatly that this is not so. By conservative estimate, the odds 
are three to one against his getting a free lunch. There are six million 
school-age children in this country from families at the rock-bottom of 
poverty-whose parents earn less than $2,000 a year and/ or are receiv­
ing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). But fewer than 
two million children receive free or reduced price lunches in the Na­
tional School Lunch Program. (See chart page 14). 

The odds are against the hungry child whether he goes to school in 
a small rural Southern county or a large Northern industrial city. Here 
is a sampling, taken from some of the communities we studied, of what 
the needy child encounters: 

13 



FREE LUNCHES AND POVERTY LEVEL* 

SrATl! 

No. OP SCHOOL-AGB 
CHJU>REN JN STATl! JN 

FAMILIES BELOW POVERlT 
LEVEL Oil RECEIVINO 

Am To FAMILIES wrm 
DEPENDENT CHILDIU!N (AFDC) 

Alabama 244,311 
Arizona 46,633 
Arkansas 149,658 
California 396,632 
Colorado 45,989 
Connecticut 39,361 
Delaware 10,082 
Washington, D. C. 22,896 
Florida 145,719 
Georgia 243,261 
Idaho 14,902 
Illinois 254,140 
Indiana 88,233 
Iowa 85,169 
Kansas 49,671 
Kentucky 196,465 
Louisiana 205,962 
Maine 22,456 
Maryland 81,246 
Massachusetts 77,492 
Michigan 167,661 
Minnesota 102,145 
Mississippi 256,196 
Missouri 144,612 
Montana 16,978 
Nebraska 37,346 
Nevada 4,688 
New Hampshire 8,385 
New Jersey 108,767 
New Mexico 45,737 
New York 405,584 
North Carolina 334,527 
North Dakota 26,325 
Ohio 194,251 
Oklahoma 101,346 
Oregon 33,832 
Pennsylvania 255,396 
Rhode Island 18,883 
South Carolina 208,329 
South Dakota 34,890 
Tennessee 222,959 
Texas 403,275 
Utah 15,395 
Vermont 8,945 
Virginia 179,409 
Washington 49,358 
West Virginia 109,083 
Wisconsin 78,593 
Wyoming 6,585 
•The source of these figure3 ls the ESEA statistical study, 1966. 

14 

No. OP ScRooL 
CHILDIU!N IN STATB 
RECEIVING FREE Oil 

REDUCED LUNCH Plues 

38,149 
19,593 
40,673 
39,647 
10,938 
40,050 
7,743 

11,787 
77,726 
84,379 
17,796 
18,717 
17,159 
12,036 
6,590 

59,846 
103,368 

8,385 
10,741 
21,409 
26,130 
16,230 
31,512 
23,266 

6,160 
18,945 
1,358 
3,412 

12,933 
20,806 

350,563 
70,765 
4,414 

43,433 
21,415 

3,858 
67,899 
7,469 

72,415 
6,043 

67,095 
73,078 

8,980 
3,039 

34,505 
8,878 

32,389 
15,699 

762 

piflLADELPIIlA, PENNSYLVANIA 
(From an interview with a junior high school principal): "If a 

child does not have the money for lunch and is not bringing lunch from 
home, in other words is not eating, he is required to go to the lunchroom 
and sit with the other children who are eating." 

LEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA 
(From interviews at a school where 519 free lunches are rotated 

among 800 eligible children): "The desperately hungry usually eat at 
least several times a week." ... "Sometimes a child becomes ill in the 
morning from lack of food." 

(From an interview with an elementary school principal:) "Noth­
ing can be done for these children who cannot buy lunch and are not 
eligible that day for free lunch, except that those who ask to eat because 
they are hungry are allowed to do so if there is enough food left over 
when the others finish eating. The teachers try to rotate the lunches 
among the pupils." 

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 
(From an interview with a teacher of low income high school 

students): "In one of my classes, five out of six children are getting no 
lunch or bringing inadequate food. In most of my other classes, 20% 
to 25 % are getting no lunch or an inadequate one. There is only one 
girl in my classes who gets a free lunch and she works for it in the 
kitchen. Since getting free lunch she has shown a marked improvement 
in attitude. Last year she was a major discipline problem." 

(From an interview with the mother of eight children who used 
to be on welfare): "All my children pay regular price. I can afford to 
pay this about three months of the year. I can't afford it during the 
cold months, when they need it most, because of extra fuel bills, the 
need for warm clothing, and so on. During the winter I try to fix them 
oleo sandwiches or sometimes peanut butter. At one time my husband 
had major surgery and was laid up for a long time. I went to school and 
asked for free lunch and was told the children could eat daily but I 
must repay the total amount after my husband got back to work. I did 
repay this." 

(From an interview with a principal): The only children getting 
free lunch are the ten who work in the kitchen. Children can apply to 
work in the cafeteria at the beginning of the year. 

15 



SUMTER COUNTY, ALABAMA 
(From interviews at a school with no lunch program): "Some 

children just eat a handful of peanuts or pecans." ... "Children have 
neither lunch from home nor money most of the time." 

(From an interview with a Negro high school principal): "We 
know there are fifty or more children who cannot afford to buy lunch, 
but we don't have enough money to feed them all. They are ineligible 
for free lunch because their parents make over $2,000 a year, but the 
parents may have eight or ten children . . . All the children go to the 
lunchroom whether they eat or not. This is because there is no one to 
supervise them if they don't go." 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 
(Comment from a parent receiving welfare whose children do 

not eat regularly at school): "If the school runs out [of lunches], that's 
it. There ain't no more allowed." 

FAYETTE COUNTY, TENNESSEE 

(Parent's comment): "When there is no money, I give them a 
big breakfast of beans and 3 ¢ for milk." 

MARYSVILLE, WASIIlNGTON (A community which includes an 
Indian Reservation) 

(From the interview with the Local School Lunch Director): Of 
3,926 children attending Marysville schools, only 40 receive free or 
reduced price lunches. There are no free lunches in the one high school 
in the district. 

(From a parent interview): "I have six children in school and 
receive welfare. I don't know anything about free lunches. All my chil­
dren pay the regular price for lunch. I don't have the money to pay 
for the lunches every day. I can't afford to buy the food to make a 
good lunch." 

(From a parent interview): "I have two children and they pay 
the reduced price-15¢. They were given free lunches at one time when 
I couldn't afford to give it to them, but they had to eat their lunch in 
the kitchen." 

(From a parent interview): "I have seven children in school. The 
children would get a reduced price lunch because I am on welfare, but 
that would cost $31.60 which is too expensive for me. When I can't 
afford to fix the lunch, the children go hungry." 

16 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA . 
(Comment from a principal): "1,250 out of 1,800 pupils cannot 

afford to eat." 

CLEVELAND, OIIlO 
(From the interview with the School Lunch Director): Only 44 

t Of 177 schools participate in the School Lunch Program. All ele-
ou d fr . . . 
mentary schools-with 88,844 children-~re exclude om pa.rtic1pating. 
In some schools, there is a rule that children are not pemntted to go 
home for lunch without special permission. Either they bring lunch to 
school or they don't eat. 

(From an elementary school principal interview): He estimates 
that there are 500 welfare children in this school getting an inadequate 
lunch or no lunch. 

(From an elementary school principal interview): He estimates 
that half of the 640 children in this school get no lunch or an inade­
quate one. 

MOUND BAYOU, MISSISSIPPI 
(From principal and teacher interviews at an elementary school): 

There are one hundred free lunches available for 940 students in the 
school. Although the price of the lunch is 15¢, the principal says that 
more than 50 per cent of the students cannot afford to pay for lunch. 
A teacher states that 25 per cent of her 40 students get no lunch or an 
inadequate one: "Children that don't eat are very hard to discipline. 
The free lunches are rotated among the students. When it is not a child's 
tum and he has nothing to eat, he just wanders around looking for 
food." 

RENO, NEVADA 
(From an interview with a junior high school principal): In 

answer to the question about what happens to a child if he is not getting 
a free or reduced price lunch, does not purchase one, and brings noth­
ing to school from home, the principal said: "We think this is the 
responsibility of parents and child. We do not check them to see if a 
student eats. As a whole, we are doing it [supplying lunch] as a service 
rather than a need." 

MEMPIIlS, TENNESSEE 

(From an interview with an elementary school principal): "If a 
child is not eating as a regular thing, the school attempts to get the 

17 



parents to apply for a free lunch. If the parent doesn't apply, the school 
cannot do the application for him. Under these circumstances, the other 
children seem voluntarily to share with the child not eating, or a teacher 
buys the child lunch-this is discouraged-or sometimes the child just 
stays in the lunchroom and doesn't eat." 

DETROIT, MICIIlGAN 
(From statistics issued by the Food Service Department of the 

Detroit Public School System): There are two schools where more than 
95 per cent of the children come from low-income families and fewer 
than one per cent of them are getting free lunches. There are also schools 
in Detroit, where there is no lunch program at all, even though the 
number of low-income families is as high as 99 per cent. 

(From an interview with a teacher): "I was not aware that needy 
children could get a free lunch in this school." 

DONNA, TEXAS (A community with large percentage of migrant 
workers) 

(From a school principal interview): "We have a specific alloca­
tion of free lunches. There are always more children to feed than funds 
allow. We have a policy that no child goes hungry. If they can't get a 
lunch, then they get milk and crackers." 

SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 
(From an interview with a parent): This parent's income from 

welfare and AFDC is $67 per week. Two of her four children are in 
school and come home for lunch "because it is cheaper." "I asked the 
principal if my children could get free lunches. The principal didn't 
answer 'yes' or 'no'. He told me my children were so rambunctious that 
they needed to be sent home at lunch time." 

(From a parent interview): "I have two elementary school chil­
dren. They take lunch to school which I fix or they fix themselves. I 
get AFDC, but the Welfare Department did not tell me about free 
lunches." Because she read about free lunches in a newspaper written 
for a nearby housing project, this mother thought that only tenants of 
the project were eligible for free lunches. When she cannot afford to 
give her children lunch, she keeps them at home. 

LA CONNER, WASHINGTON 

(From the interview with the Local School Lunch Director): This 
community bas a high proportion of needy children. Of 459 children in 

18 

the two schools here, 24 get free or reduced price lunches. "The chil­
dren are given the opportunity to work one day for a free lunch the 
next day. Older children can do the work for the younger ones." 

(From a parent interview): "I know of several families who ought 
to be getting a free lunch. Some families keep their children out of school 
when they don't have lunch to give them or money for them to buy it." 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 
(From an interview with a teacher in a slum junior-senior high 

school with 1,264 Negro students): Of 250 children in the lunch pro­
gram, there are six reduced price lunches and one free lunch. "Seventeen 
out of my 36 children are either not getting any lunch or an inadequate 
one. I see definite personality changes when a child doesn't get lunch." 

(From an interview with the principal of a rural Negro elemen­
tary school with 71 children): "Of the 36 children who don't buy lunch, 
20 don't because they can't afford to. There are children who go hungry 
if the teacher doesn't share her lunch. I wish more hungry children could 
be fed." 

(From an interview with an elementary school teacher): "I give 
up most of my lunch each day. I want food for all the children, but I 
can't afford to buy tickets for all of them. You can't teach a hungry child." 

(From an interview with an elementary school teacher): "The 
children in my class are the oldest ones in the school. And when there 
isn't enough food to go around in a big family, of course, these older 
ones go without. Breakfast is unknown for many of these children, but 
there are no free lunches. About one-third of the children get reduced 
price lunch, but that's 20¢. The pattern is that students run out of money 
for lunch by the end of the week. 

ST.LOUIS,:MISSOURI 

(From an interview with the principal of a slum elementary 
sch~o~): There are 1,045 elementary school children enrolled here, the 
maJonty of them on welfare. Twelve are given free lunches. There are 
no reduced price lunches. 

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 

(From an interview with the principal of a Negro elementary 
school): "Probably 70 per cent to 80 per cent of our 850 pupils here 
come from homes where the family income is $3,000 or less per year. 

19 



We are authorized this year to serve 311 free lunches daily. If there is no 
lunch for a child who has brought nothing from home and does not have 
the money to pay for it, we divide one lunch among two pupils, or take 
the cost of the lunch from petty cash, or occasionally, the teacher will 
pay herself. There have been ti.mes when children have gone without." 

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 
(From an interview with a high school cafeteria manager of a 

newly opened school): This school gives no free or reduced price lunches, 
although children of welfare recipients are approximately 20 per cent 
of the student body. The campus is open at lunch time, i.e., students 
may go where they please, so the school can't keep track of who is 
eating. But the manager felt that at least 20 per cent of the students are 
eating no lunch, either at home or in the schools, and 90 per cent of 
these are Negroes. 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 
(From an interview with an elementary school principal): "The 

child who cannot afford to buy lunch and doesn't bring anything from 
home stays in the classroom during lunch hour with those who have 
brought a bag lunch." 

(From an elementary school principal interview): "The child 
with nothing to eat plays outdoors during the lunch hour. Lunches are 
rotated among the needy on a weekly basis. One thousand children need 
free lunches, but only 15 get them." 

(From an interview with a high school principal): "Lunch period 
is used as a study period for those who have nothing to eat. Often 
teachers buy some of these children lunch or bring extra food from 
home." 

(From an elementary school principal interview): "We choose 
the children for free lunches at the beginning of the year. There is no 
rotation of free lunches. If you have to go hungry, you might as well get 
used to it." 

The examples given above could be multiplied a hundredfold. There 
are some communities-a very few-where every needy child does get 
a lunch. New York City, not included in our study, is an example, ac­
cording to a survey done by that city's United Parents Associations. 

In addition, there are many, many individual schools where every 
needy c::hild gets a free lunch. This occurs either where a school has a 

20 

predominantly middle or upper class student body able to pay the full 
price of the school lunch and a small percentage of needy students or 
where Federally funded programs, other than the National School Lunch 
Program, provide special funds for free meals. 

It is when a large number of needy students attend a school that 
the system of providing free lunches for them collapses. It is in these 
schools that the stopgap measures noted in the above examples are em­
ployed-rotating the free lunches, or having the teacher buy the children 
lunch, or hoping the others will share, or having the children stand at the 
end of the line to see whether any food is left over. It is in these schools 
where the problem is so overwhelming that principals cannot cope with 
it and the hungry children just sit and watch their classmates eat while 
they go hungry. 

21 



2 
WHICH CHILD 
IS NEEDY? 

The School Lunch Act states that all children who cannot pay the 
full price, determined by local authorities, shall be given a free or reduced 
price lunch. Each school must agree in writing to meet this requirement. 
But the Department of Agriculture has adopted a hands-off policy on 
suggestions, directives or guidelines to help local authorities come up with 
a uniform standard of need. 

This lack of guidelines, coupled with the present system of financing, 
has resulted in a crazy-quilt pattern for determining need. A child classi­
fied as needy in one community might not be so classified in the neigh­
boring town. Indeed, the eligibility standards vary from school to school. 
And it is not at all unusual for children in one family to be accorded 
different status-one child is eligible, but his brother is not. 

In general we have observed, the poorer the school, the needier 
the child must be to get a free lunch. In some school districts, the chil-

22 

dren of families with incomes over a certain amount-$2,000 is the 
usual amount-are not eligible for free lunches, although no distinction 
is made between the family with one child and the family with seven 
or eight children. 

In some school districts, only children of welfare recipients are 
eligible. Equally needy children whose parents are not eligible for wel­
fare because of restrictions such as length of residence and the presence 
of a "substitute father" or "employable mother" are disqualified. In some 
school districts, only children whose parents are not receiving welfare 
and are in a low income bracket are eligible. 

But declaring the child eligible does not mean that he actually gets 
a free or reduced price lunch. Where money is lacking to feed all the 
eligible children, the school may have a quota of free lunches. Some­
times the available meals are rotated, as noted in the previous chapter, 
and the needy child gets lunch once or twice a week. The rest of the 
time be goes without. 

But in most schools there is no set formula, such as being on wel­
fare or not being on welfare, and no set maximum income. The school 
principal makes the decision, sometimes with the recommendation of 
the classroom teacher, the school nurse, or a social worker. 

Since the principal has no formula to guide him, and since he may 
be grappling with the problem of a lack of funds, he may make his 
decision upon considerations which have little to do with the needs of a 
particular child. His own attitudes about the School Lunch Program­
whether he regards it as a burden which should be a welfare responsibility 
or as an intrinsic part of the child's education-play a role in his decision. 

The principal may not know who the needy are and may have 
neither the desire nor the time to seek them out. A report in the Sep­
tember, 1966 issue of the School Lunch Journal* about school officials 
in the Granite School District in Salt Lake County, Utah, who do not 
wait for applications for free lunch but seek out needy children, indi­
cates a practice that we rarely found. Usually, if parents do not know 
that free lunches must be provided, or if they do not know how to make 
the application, that is their problem. 

A principal may have moralistic notions that parents who are not 
willing to pay something do not know the value of good nutrition and 
perfer to spend money on other things. The presence of a television set 

• The. School Lunch Journal is the publication of the American School Food 
Scmce Association, the national organization of professionals involved in non­
profit school food service work. 

23 



in the home or the judgment that parents spend money on whiskey may 
disqualify a child. The presence of an unemployed father may also 
handicap the hungry child. And it sometimes happens that a principal 
or teacher will favor the child with the neat appearance. We found this 
in a low-income school in New Orleans where only 95 free lunches are 
available to 2,000 students and where the teacher who uses this selection 
procedure can choose only two of her children to eat each day. 

We heard a number of comments about doing too much for peo­
ple who really ought to help themselves. 

A Florida public health official, although she observed 20 per cent 
malnutrition among school age children in her district, could still say: 
"We give too many free school lunches. People have to learn to help 
themselves." And a State School Lunch Director told us the following 
story: 

"I would hazard the guess that at least 10 per cent of the children who 
are not getting free lunches should be getting them because they can­
not afford to pay. On the other hand, it all depends on what you mean 
by 'cannot afford to pay.' Let me give you an example: I used to be 
a teacher and in my class I had two youngsters whose mother asked for 
free lunches for them because their father was going into the hospital 
for surgery. I realized this would mean a loss of pay and extra medical 
bills and this struck me as a valid reason. As a matter of fact, I kept 
them on free lunches for the balance of the year-two months-even 
though their father was in the hospital less than two weeks. In the fall 
term, the mother again asked that the children be given free lunches. 
However, I learned that this family had a television set. If they could 
afford a television set, they certainly could afford good nutrition for 
their children, so I refused to put them on the free list. The trouble with 
these people is that they have no sense of values-they just don't know 
what's important and what isn't.'' 

In many cases, it is not the school, but the parents and the children 
themselves who make the decision not to apply for free lunches. Over 
and over again, we heard parents say that although their need is great, 
they would not subject their children to the humiliation of being pointed 
out by their classmates as being too poor to afford lunch; or they would 
not go through the embarrassment of a searching investigation-with no 
guarantee of confidentiality-that applying for free lunches might in­
volve. 

What follows is a sampling of some of the practices used in identi­
fying needy children for free lunches: 

MOBILE, ALABAMA: No district-wide pattern used. Some schools 
depend upon the recommendation of the classroom teacher, some on 

24 

the principal, some on a PTA committee, and one school gives no free 
lunches at all. A welfare worker says: "Th~ ~elfare Dep~ent makes 

f rrals of needy children to the school pnnc1pal, but with few excep­
~ e the school cannot provide free lunches. Each school is responsible 
t10ns, d · 
for the operation of its own lunch p~og~am, and where the nee IS 

greatest, the resources are least. The pnnc1pals have stated th~t they are 
not financially able to provide free lunches for the many children who 

need them." 

sUMTER COUNTY, ALABAMA: Families must have income of less 
than $2,000 a year regardless of the size of the family. 

TUCSON, ARIZONA: In one low-income elementary school, ten out 
of 549 children are given free lunch each day and the older children are 
required to work for it. The principal states: "I don't believe in free 
lunches for welfare people. They have enough if they manage their 
affairs properly to feed themselves. Of course, if a child is hungry we 
always give him something. It [the school lunch] is not a welfare or 
educational responsibility. It is the parents' responsibility. But since the 
children are here and we don't want them hungry, we see to it that they 
are fed. We do give free milk in the early morning to 85 children." 

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: All free lunches are financed by 
ESEA, not the National School Lunch Program. The criterion used is 
an income of less than $2,000 a year. 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: Parents must be on welfare or earn 
less than welfare scale. Then the children are entitled to a maximum of 
ten free lunch tickets a month except in June and December, which are 
short school months, when the eligible children get five tickets a month. 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA: Mothers receiving AFDC and 
requesting free lunches are referred by the Welfare Department to the 
school, but some are turned down. A Welfare Department official states: 
"Schools in the deprived areas of town have less funds available to meet 
the needs of all the children. Unfortunately, a child who might be con­
sidered deprived in an area of slightly higher economic standards, will 
not be considered deprived in his own school. Some instances of refused 
free lunch referrals have been cited which indicate that some rejections 
are based on subjective feelings." 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA: Evidence is obtained from the Welfare 
Department after an investigation of the home, employers, neighbors. A 
visiting teacher states, "Sometimes a child I've advised to apply for free 
lunch has to be turned down since there is only so much money available 

25 



for free lunches or partially paid lunches. The decision is first come, 
first served." 

In a school with about 650 pupils, the principal reports that there 
are 250 who cannot pay the 45¢ price for lunch. However, the school 
is able to provide only 60 free or reduced price lunches. 

In a family of six children, one student pays the full price at one 
school; at another school, one child is fed free and one pays a reduced 
price. At still another school, two pay a reduced price and one pays the 
full price. 

AUGUSTA, GEORGIA: The Welfare Department advises its clients 
to have their children apply for free lunches, but has no control over 
the selection. "A great number of welfare clients are turned down," 
states a welfare official. The classroom teacher selects children for free 
lunches and the demand always exceeds the supply. The principal of a 
school that receives both Sec. 11 (Special Assistance) funds and ESEA 
funds says that the teachers make home visits periodically to determine 
the eligibility of the children through their observation. 

An elementary school teacher says she knows which children are 
eligible "by their clothing." A parent, one of whose six children gets a 
free lunch, and the other five get reduced price lunches, doesn't under­
stand why all her children can't eat free this year because "last year 
three children had free lunches and this year my husband's income is 
lower than last year." She filled out a form for free lunches at the school, 
but their income was too high for more than one free lunch, she was told. 

PEORIA, ILLINOIS: No free lunches. 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA: No evidence is required. "We take 
the parent's word that he is needy and hope he is telling the truth." Some 
schools have a quota of free lunches, and when these are exhausted, no 
more can be given no matter who is eligible. In one combined elementary­
junior high school, the principal stated that free lunches are distributed 
on a family basis, that is, if there are seven children in one family, the 
family may receive four free lunches to be used as they see fit 

DETROIT, MICHIGAN: The general guide for free lunch eligibility 
given to school principals is a family of four with a yearly budget of 
$2,444. What happens to this guideline in practice can be seen from the 
following comments: 

(From an interview with a parent): "During the time my four 
grandchildren lived with me and attended Junior High School, I served 

26 

President of the PT A for one year and was a constant worker with 
;;.A the rest of the time. My children were denied free lunches. Their 

arents were divorced and the money the court ordered my son to pay 
~as far from sufficient to feed and clothe four growing children. Under 
these conditions they were still denied free lunches. I feel that someone 
with more common-sense knowledge should determine when a family 
qualifies for free lunch for their children." 

(From an interview with a junior high school principal): "The 
Welfare Director told me that welfare recipients are given a sufficient 
amount to cover three meals a day, and therefore welfare children don't 
necessarily need free lunch." 

MJNNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: Generally, families receiving AF?C 
are not granted free lunches. Children over 16 are referred to the Neigh­
borhood Youth Corps and other work programs, thus "eliminating the 
necessity for free lunches." Among the considerations for free lunches 
are the family's budget, with particular attention to the ability to man­
age money; indebtedness; sickness and other emergenci~; seasonal 
employment. Special consideration is given to needy families new to 
the city and not yet on welfare, health status of the child, and willingness 
of the family to use this help. 

JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI: The Local School Lunch Director states: 
''The school does not wish to be involved in finding or certifying needy 
children for the free lunches. A child will not get a free lunch unless he 
is certified by the County Welfare Department, the United Givers, the 
Salvation Army or Family Services. Since each school has a maximum 
number of lunches served free in any month, those who are told about 
free lunches by the welfare agencies and certified by them are only from 
the most destitute families." 

RENO, NEVADA: Being on welfare does not ensure a free lunch. 
There is a county form for parents to fill out to apply for lunch. Any 
number of people in a school can identify the needy children. In two 
school principal interviews, both said that the standard they used is a 
monthly income under $200 in a family with one child, and under $300 
a month for a family with as many as five children. 

BRIDGETON, NEW JERSEY: The Local School Lunch Director says 
that the only standard for eligibility is for the child or anyone else to 
express need to the principal, teacher or cafeteria manager. But exten­
sive interviews with parents show that many obviously needy children 
get free lunch only when they work in the cafeteria. Others are too proud 
to ask. 

27 



BUFFALO, NEW YORK: The Welfare Department fee~ "it. is ~ot 
desirable to identify children receiving welfare, and any .r~lations~p :'1th 
the school concerning a child would be based on an individual situation, 
not the fact that children on welfare are getting school lunches." In 
this city, the principal determines if there are any children who need 
free lunches. 

NEWBURGH, NEW YORK: The Social Services [Welfare] Department 
gives the cost of the school lunch-at school rates. ranging from 25¢ to 
40¢ per day-to welfare families in addition to their monthly grant. 

FAYETTE COUNTY TENNESSEE: In one elementary school, the 
practice is that childre~ on welfare are generally .no~ give~ lunches. But 
if the child is hungry, even if on welfare, the prmcipal tries to see that 
he gets something to eat from leftovers, generally peanut butter or cheese 
from donated commodities and crackers. 

In interviewing a principal of an eleme~tary sch.ool ~ith high par­
ticipation and a fairly adequate free lunch policy, our .mtervie':"er learned 
that this school (described as mixed socio-econoffilc and mtegrated) 
also prepares some lunches for a nearby poor, rural, all-Negro school. 
Approximately 60 per cent of the children at the Negro school eat no 
lunch at all and only a few get free meals. The principal of the first 
school feels that if his Federal reimbursement were increased from ~e 
present 6Yz"\¢, he would be able to feed more children at the sa~elhte 
school. Whatever the reason, this is a perfect example of the arbitrary 
free lunch policy in two neighboring schools--one is able to feed almost 
all its needy children, and the other is able to feed almost none. 

MEMPIDS, TENNESSEE: Memphis has uniform criteria ~o: free or 
reduced priced lunches and a sliding scale of fees. The d~c1S.ions con­
cerning how much each child must pay are made by the D1Strl~t School 
Lunch Director. This arrangement which seems so much fairer th~ 
leaving the decision to local principals still ~oes not. solve the basic 
problem of feeding large numbers of poor children with scarce funds. 
Our interviews revealed that there are many children who are charged 
5¢ for their lunch but cannot even pay that token fee: ~one school 98 
such children were aoina hungry, according to the pnncipal. In another 
school only 103 of fue 415 pupils approved for reduced. priced ~~c?es 
were actually eating. They did not have the money which the objec­
tive" system in the central office had established as. reasonable. In. one 
welfare family only four out of the seven school children we:e e~title~ 
to reduce price lunches. Apparently, some parents feel the situation is 
so hopeless that they do not even bother to apply. 

28 

DONNA, TEXAS: The Welfare Department says: "The school social 
worker calls our office when a parent applies to see if they are on wel­
fare. Because of limited funds, free lunches are usually not given to 
children on welfare." A parent, who is a migrant farm worker and who 
bas seven children in both special migrant schools and regular schools, 
requested that her children be put on the free lunch program, but after 
the social worker made a home visit, she did not hear anything further. 
At the time of the interview there was no income in the family because 
there was no work available. 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA: From a memorandum from the Director of 
School Food Services: "A careful study shall be made by the principal, 
teacher, or visiting teacher to determine the need for free lunches. This 
should be repeated at least every three months to be sure the conditions 
are unchanged. All welfare cases are not eligible for free lunches. AFDC 
includes food. Under proper management they should not need free 
lunches." 

SEA TILE, WASHINGTON: From a school bulletin: "Eligibility [for 
free lunches] is limited to students of low-income families who are not 
receiving aid from welfare services, A.D.C. [AFDC] , or other public 
assistance. Reevaluation of each case must be made after each two-week 
period to re-establish eligibility: Family with one child, gross income 
not over $300 per month; family with two or more children, gross income 
not over $350 per month ... Financial eligibility requirements do not 
apply to free milk." 

A memorandum from the Missouri State School Lunch Director 
spells out the financial problems which, in the view of this Director 
at least, make it necessary to limit severely the number of children 
eligible for free lunches: 

"We seem to be receiving an increasing number of letters from parents 
requesting free lunches for their children. The letters indicate that their 
financial situation is attributed to localized unemployment, limited in­
come and continued increases in the cost of living. For this reason, we 
feel that a review of the National School Lunch regulations pertaining 
to free lunches is in order. 
". . . You will note that under the law local school officials have full 
authority and responsibility for determining need. There is no set pattern 
for making this determination. In some instances, this matter is left 
to the principal or classroom teacher who is familiar with the economic 
background of the children ... 
". . . Where parents are determined by local school authorities to be 
financially able to provide lunches for their children, but arbitrarily re­
fuse to do so, the school is not obligated under our agreement to con­
tinue to offer free service to the children. 

29 



"In instances where state welfare grants are concerned, .you wo~d not 
be obligated to offer free lunches if their cost has ~n mclud~~ tn the 
budget drawn up by the County Welfare Office tn detenmrung the 
amount of aid the family is to receive. The fact that welfare f~~ds may 
not be adequate to meet the minimum budget for welfare families do~s 
not necessarily remove responsibility from the welfare ~g~ncy. It still 
remains a welfare problem to meet the need for providing adequ:ite 
funds for a minimum budget. This is the primary purpose for which 
welfare agencies were established. 
"Local school districts do not have a levy for welfare purposes, and 
further the Federal school lunch reimbursement aid extended to local 
distric~ has been drastically reduced during the past several years. 
Even at greatly reduced reimbursement rates in effe.ct during ~e past 
year, the inadequate Federal funds were exhausted with the partial pay­
ment of their May claims. In addition, usable food surpluses, purchased 
under farm price support programs no longer exist . . . ~c~l scho?l 
districts were then faced with the financial problem of contmumg their 
lunch programs without even the limited federal cash contribution dur­
ing the remainder of the school year. 
"In view of the . . . continued limited Federal appropriations for the 
National School Lunch Program, we urge all school administra~ors ~o 
explore all possibilities for obtaining some source of food serVIce aid 
for needy children under the more liberally financed Federal Welf~re, 
Education and Economic Opportunity programs . . . Th~ 4¢ reim­
bursement under the National School Lunch Act cannot possibly finance 
free lunches for needy children that presently cost approximately 50¢ 
to place on the serving line." 

We cannot leave the subject of the factors that determine which 
needy children are fed without considering whether included in this 
determination is discrimination against minority group children- Negro, 
Puerto Rican, Mexican-American and American Indian. 

We did not design our questionnaires to find out about racial or 
ethnic discrimination. We asked a few questions but they did not result 
in much information. All State School Lunch Directors said they did not 
keep statistics on the number of minority group children who parti~ipate 
in the program and/ or receive free meals. Also, persons whom we mter­
viewed in central offices were often unable or unwilling to identify schools 
as "middle-class, rural poor, inner-city slum, mixed socio-economic" or 
to give us information which would permit us to make any generaliza­
tions about the differences existing in schools where minority group 
children predominate and those in which the majority are white. 

We had to rely, then, on our interviewers' observations and interpre­
tations of the attitudes and practices of administrators in the program 
and on scattered information brought to our attention. Some commented 

30 

on the difference in atmosphere and equipment between predominantly 
Negro schools and schools attended primarily by white children. Here 
are some other :findings: 

In an Alabama County, the seven schools that do not participate in 
the school lunch program are all poor rural Negro schools without 
facilities. This is the first year that any Negro school has had a cafeteria 
(supplied through ESEA funds). When the interviewer began with her 
first question about the number of schools in the county, the School 
Lunch Director asked, "Do you want the colored schools, too?" Each 
white school has a trained cafeteria manager who prepares the menus 
and supervises the program but the County School Lunch Director pre­
pares the menus for all the Negro schools. 

In a Mississippi County, lunch and milk programs were discontinued 
at a school which the white children abandoned after 18 Negro students 
enrolled. The school administration stated that the program was discon­
tinued for "economic reasons". 

In another southern county, Negro children who transferred to a formerly 
all-white school were told that there were no free or reduced price lunches 
served at that school. Since the price of lunch was 30¢, and since the 
Negroes were from poor families, these children went hungry. Many 
observers have reported that children who are receiving free lunches 
at all-Negro schools under ESEA are advised that they will no longer be 
entitled to this assistance if they enroll in formerly all-white schools. 
This is a device to discourage desegregation and is contrary to ESEA 
regulations. 

In a South Carolina county, school officials refused to allow white schools 
to be included in our study. We discovered that Negro schools rely solely 
on ESEA funds for lunches; we were told that in the white schools free 
lunches are part of the regular National School Lunch Program. 

In the West and Southwest, we heard complaints from parents that their 
children were discriminated against because they are Indian or Mexican­
American. 

We found a few school administrators whose attitudes toward 
minority children are openly hostile. One State Director kept referring 
to Indian children as "dirty", "dishonest'', and "dumb." Another State 
School Lunch Director's telephone conversation, taken down verbatim 
by the interviewer, as she was waiting to talk with him, speaks for 
itself: "Well, I was down in one County and I saw 'niggers', Indians 
and whites all eating in the same cafeteria at the same table. We went 

31 



over to one of them all-Indian schools later and those Indians are worse 
than the 'niggers'. It was really filthy. Those niggers in one County are 
eating now. I wonder what that black rascal gonna say now? You tell 
that boy in Washington we're gonna feed his 'nigger' children." 

At this stage in our country's history it will shock no one that some 
white people despise members of minority groups. The fact that some 
of these people are administering school lunch programs is not startling 
either. We cannot document how these attitudes affect the program. But 
there is enough evidence of discrimination in the School Lunch Program 
to warrant a thorough study by agencies staffed and equipped to do 
the job-the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights or the Department of 
Agriculture itself, or both. 

While we could not pursue individual instances of racial or ethnic 
discrimination, the material in this report amply documents wholesale 
economic discrimination. Minority group children are poor children. And 
poor children are discriminated against because they are excluded from 
the National School Lunch Program. 

The parents of these children and the children themselves only 
know that they are kept out of the program. Many of them conclude 
that they are excluded, or are treated differently, because their skins are 
black or brown, or because of their accents-a conclusion entirely justified 
by their previous experience in American life. It is small comfort to them 
to learn that they are discriminated against not because of their color but 
because they are poor. To a hungry child this is a very fine distinction, 
indeed, and one without meaning or humanity. 

32 

3 
"EVERYBODY KNOWS 
THEIR NAMES" 

The National School Lunch Act and the USDA Regulations make 
it a condition of participation in the Program that there be no discrimina­
tion against any child because of his inability to pay the full price of 
the lunch, i.e., he shall not be fed at a different time, or a different 
place, or in such a way that he can be identified by his schoolmates. 
Many State School Lunch Directors have issued instructions or sugges­
tions about how to prevent needy children from the humiliation of being 
identified by the paying children. Most State School Lunch Directors 
sincerely believe that needy children cannot be identified. 

But where teachers who collect school lunch money are overworked, 
where the principal regards the School Lunch Program as an unnecessary 
burden, where the community in general is hostile to welfare recipients 
in any form, those suggestions are ignored and those instructions are 
violated with monotonous regularity. The examples given below are 
not exceptional: 

33 



DENVER, COLORADO 
(High Sclzool Teachers): Teachers feel that more students would 

participate in the free or reduced lunch program if there were no stigma 
attached to it. Even though only the office and the cafeteria supervisor 
are supposed to know who is receiving free lunches, there is often such 
a lack of understanding on the part of the supervisor that students have 
been embarrassed in line and have commented that they would rather go 
hungry than be humiliated in front of others. 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

(Teacher): "I do not collect lunch money. It is collected by a 
member of the cafeteria staff. Children who receive free lunch have 
cards, and other children are aware of this." 

(High School Principal): "Children who are getting free lunches 
are required to work for it in the lunch room, so, of course, everybody 
knows who they are." 

MEMPIDS, TENNESSEE 

(Junior High School Principal): "Children receiving free lunches 
go into a special room alone to get a token for the plate lunch. The free 
children get a token; others pay cash." 

(Elementary Sclzool Teacher): "Up until this year, poor children 
worked in the cafeteria to earn free lunches and were fed first. I believe 
this policy may be changed this year." 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 

(Elementary School Principal): "Free children have a different 
color lunch ticket." 

(Elementary Sclzool Teacher): "It is recognized by others in the 
class. The child does not have a special card but receives a special ticket 
to be punched daily. It is collected in the classroom." 

MOUND BAYOU, MISSISSIPPI 

(Former Cafeteria Manager): "Children that eat free must wait 
until paying students get through." 

(Elementary School Teacher): "There is a difference in the kind 
of tickets the children that receive the free lunches and those who pay 
get. This has a very definite psychological effect on the children who 
receive free lunches." 

34 

DONNA, TEXAS 
(Principal): "Elementary school children all have tickets, but the 

free ones are a slightly different color." 

ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

(Elementary School Principal): The children getting free lunches 
are made to get at the end of the cafeteria line. They use tokens; the rest 
of the children pay cash. This happens despite the fact that the Local 
School Lunch Director sent out a suggestion to all principals that all 
children use tokens in the cafeteria. 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

(Welfare Department): "The strongest, most hostile feelings by 
clients are expressed in relation to the attitudes of cafeteria personnel and 
supervising lunch room teachers toward the children. These complaints 
are geographically separated and frequent enough to indicate validity. 
Children receiving free lunches are too frequently reminded that they 
are not paying and are made to feel guilty if they do not eat all of the 
food." 

(Elementary School Principal): "Children must have a special 
card to give to the cafeteria cashier and are required to work in the 
lunch room if convenient for the school." 

(Elementary Teacher): "We call the roll and they tell us which 
ones brought lunch, are paying for it, and are not paying. The children 
don't seem to notice." 

GARY, INDIANA 

(Elementary School Principal): "A separate line is set up for them 
to pick up their lunch tickets. Then they get into the regular lunch line." 

SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA 

(Junior High School Teacher): "Other children can tell who is 
getting a free lunch. Tickets are passed out in home room for free 
lunches each day. Students pay or present tickets in the cafeteria. In 
one case, I give one embarrassed student her ticket after class because 
she would rather go hungry than have classmates know she cannot pay." 

(School Principal): "Free children have a ticket while the others 
pay, but the difference is not obvious." 

35 



LEE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA 
(Teacher Interview): "I collect the money and the child getting 

a free lunch presents a special card. The teachers call out the names of 
those eligible for a free lunch that day." 

(Teacher Interview): "At lunch time I walk down the line giving 
out tickets. The free tickets are a different color from the pay tickets." 

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 

(Principal): Asked if anybody knew the ten children in his school 
who received free lunch by working for it, he replied that "the school is 
too large for people to notice individual eating habits." 

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 
(Welfare Department): Welfare workers believe that some teachers 

point out welfare children and embarrass them. 

RENO, NEVADA 

(Four Teachers): All agreed that the paying children knew who 
was getting a free lunch; two, because of the way the money was collected 
one, because of a special ticket the needy child is given; and one, be­
cause the teacher called off the names of free and paying children. 

In contrast to the examples given above there is the interview with 
the Local School Lunch Director in Great Falls, Montana. When asked 
whether free and reduced price children could be distinguished from 
paying children her reply was a vehement: "NO, NO, NO, NO! The 
list is confidential. Paid and free tickets are alike. In our system, each 
school bas a cashier. [Upon information from the principal] she issues 
all free and reduced tickets." Our interviews confirmed that only the 
principal and cafeteria manager know who is paying and who is not. 

This last example shows that if a school makes an effort it can 
prevent the child who gets a free lunch from being embarrassed. Every­
body does not have to know his name. 

36 

4 
FINANCING THE 
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 

1. MATCHING FUNDS 
"[Federal] funds apportioned to any state ... shall be made upon 

condition that each dollar thereof will be matched during the year . . . 
by $3 from sources within the State determined by the Secretary to have 
been expended in connection with the school lunch program under this 
act ... " (National School Lunch Act, 1962). 

The National School Lunch Act does not spell out which "sources 
within the State" shall provide this $3 to match the Federal Govern­
ment's $1. The Department of Agriculture has interpreted this phrase 
to mean that, according to its Regulations, "Funds from sources within 
the State shall include . . . funds expended for the program . . . from 
children's payments ... " 

Thus the states, and the individual school districts within the states, 
have no responsibility to provide matching funds from taxes to the 

37 



w 

STATE 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Florida<b> 

Georgia 

Illinois 

oo Iowa 

I.» 

Kansas 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

STATE 

New Mexico 

New York 

N. Carolina 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

'° South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

62-63 

30 

20 

26.5 

25 

28 

30 

15 

30 

22.5 

30 

23.8 

30 

25 

27.5 

62-63 

25 

25 

26 

23.15 

24.92 

25 

30 

20 

25 

25 

30 

30 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

FINANCING WITHIN THE STATE 

AVERAGE PRICES 

63-64 64-65 65-66 

35 40 40 

Not Given 

22 25 27 

5¢ increase per year 

27.5 28.5 30.5 

26 26 27 

28 30 32 

30 30 30 

25 - 28 

15 15 15 

30 30 35 

Not Given 

22.5 22.5 22.5 

35 35 40 

24 24.2 24.2 

30 30 30 

27.5 30 

29 

31.25 

20 

66-67 

45 

30 

32.5 

37.5 

29 

33 

31 

30 

20 

35 

25 

45 

26.4 

30 

30 

31.25 

45 

CHILDREN 

100.0% 

82.0% 

93.6% 

94.5 % 

96.4% 

49.0% 

85.2% 

86.1% 

66.5% 

90.5% 

75.7% 

97.2% 

89.9% 

78.0% 

FINANCING WlTillN THE STATE 

AVERAGE PRICES 

63-64 

30 

25 

28 

22.28 

25.07 

27 

30 

25 

25 

30 

30 

25 

27 

25 

25 

25 

64-65 

28 

35 

25 

30 

22.57 

24.93 

28 

35 

25 

25 

30 

30 

25 

29 

30 

25 

25 

65-66 

31 

35 

25 

32 

22.98 

25.15 

32 

40 

22.5 

25 

25 

32.5 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

25 

66-67 

35 

40 

30 

34 

24.09 

27.51 

32 

40 

25 

25 

30 

35 

30 

30 

30 

40 

30 

30 

C HILDREN 

52.9% 

90.3 % 

79.2% 

89.0% 

81.5% 

90.8% 

89.0% 

92.0% 

96.6% 

79.1% 

90.0% 

76.9% 

CONTRIBUTION BY 

STATE 
G OVER NMl!NT 

.3% 

2.3% 

LocAL 
G OVERN MENT 

17.7% 

4.1% 

Incomplete Figures 

Incomplete Figures 

.3% 2.5% 

.4% 3.2% 

Incomplete Figures 

Incomplete Figures 

Incomplete Figures 

36.0% 13.0% 

1.6% 11.4% 

.3% 

11.0% 

13.9% 

22.5% 

Incomplete Figures 

2.3% 6.9% 

3.9% 

2.8% 

9.1% 

20.4% 

.6% 

.6 % 21.4% 

CONTRIBUTION BY 

STATE 
GOVl!RNMl!NT 

LocAL 
G OVEllNM J!NT 

Incomplete Figures 

20.9% 

.8% 

.2% 

5.6% 

.7% 

26.2% 

8.9% 

20.6% 

5.4% 

17.8% 

.3 % 8.9% 

Incomplete Figures 

4.3% 3.9% 

Not Given 

.3% 

.4% 

19.9 % 

Incomplete Figures 

7.7% 

3.0% 

1.0% 

.4% 9.6% 

Incomplete Figures 

Incomplete Figures 

.9% 22.2% 

a ) •The source of these fi gures are interviews with the State School Lunch D irectors. 
b ) This year was the first that Florida had made an appropriation. At the time of the interview, however, the Governor had just vetoed It. 

CHARITIES 

.2% 

1.6% 

.3% 

.4% 

2.8% 



Federal contribution. That responsibility is borne by the children out 
of what they pay for their lunches. Many states have appropriated funds 
to support the operation of the State School Lunch Director's office only, 
a tiny percentage of the total cost of the program. Few states contribute 
anything beyond this, and one at least-Alabama-does not do this. 

Some communities contribute to the School Lunch Program out of 
local taxes; many do not. In most states, the only substantial non-Federal 
contribution is what the children pay for lunches. The chart on pps. 38 
& 39 shows the percentage that the children in each state pay out of the 
state's contribution to the so-called "$3 to $1" formula. 

A look at the individual child's lunch to see how this system affects 
the financing of the total program is instructive. 

It costs an average of 50¢ (not including milk) to put the child's 
school lunch plate in front of him. That 50¢ cost includes the price of 
locally purchased food and the cost of storing it, transporting it, cooking 
it, and serving it. Also included are the salaries of cooks, dishwashers, 
dieticians, local supervisors, and sometimes part of the cost of administra­
tion. 

Let us say the child pays 35¢ for that lunch (a fairly average cost, 
although in the bigger cities the price tends to be 40¢ to 45¢ and the 
average total cost of the lunch is proportionately higher). The Federal 
Government contributes an average of 4.5¢ cash reimbursement toward 
the lunch, and the value of the Federally donated commodities may be 
as high as 11.5¢. 

According to these calculations, the School Lunch Program works 
out just right: The amount the child pays plus the amount of the Federal 
contribution adds up to what it costs to provide the child with a lunch. 

But what happens when the cost of the lunch goes up because the 
price of food or the price of labor increases? And what happens when 
a large number of children cannot afford to pay the full price of the 
lunch, or to pay anything at all? How is this extra cost financed? 

Our examination will show that the present methods of financing 
these extra costs are at best stopgaps and, at worst, are completely in­
adequate to meet the twin problems of rising cost and rising need. 

The state can make a contribution to the School Lunch Program 
out of state taxes. Unfortunately, few state legislatures seem impelled 
to do this. Where it is done in any significant amount, it has a dramatic 
effect on the price of the school lunch in general, and on the ability to 
provide free and reduced price lunches to needy children. 

40 

South Carolina, for example, makes a state allotment of 50¢ per 
year for every elementary and secondary school child enrolled. This con­
tributes to the fact that South Carolina's participation rate in the pro­
gram is over 61 per cent, one of the highest in the nation, and that ~he 
state also has one of the highest percentages of free and reduced pnce 
lunches-25.6 per cent--compared to an average of less than 8 per cent 
in Alabama, Mississippi and Virginia. 

New York State contributes an amount sufficient to raise the level 
of the Federal subsidy to 9¢ per lunch, as compared to the current 
national average reimbursement of 4.5¢ per lunch. Its percentage of free 
and reduced price lunches is the highest in the nation-27.4 per cent. 

The Utah Legislature doubled the state's contribution to the School 
Lunch Program and now pays 19 per cent of the Program's cost. Elemen­
tary school lunch prices now average 21¢ to 25¢, which is well below 
the average national price of 35¢, although the percentage of free lunches 
is slightly less than the national average. 

Louisiana contributes 9¢ to the cost of each meal. The state's par­
ticipation rate is 73 per cent, the nation's highest, and the free and 
reduced price lunch rate is 18 per cent, well above the national average 
of 10 per cent. And Louisiana is able to keep the price of the lunch 
down to 20¢-25¢. The significance of a state contribution to participation, 
price, and free and reduced price lunches can hardly be overstated. 

Communities, too, can contribute local tax funds to support the 
School Lunch Program, but only a few have done so and only in a small 
way. For example, some pay the costs of utilities, some the salaries of 
local administrators. More frequently, communities adopt two other 
methods to meet their financial problems: 1) they discontinue lunch 
programs in schools which cannot make ends meet; or 2) they raise 
the prices. 

Closing a school lunch program causes bitter anger, and no matter 
bow the matter is resolved, leaves a scar. In Oakland, California, for 
instance, the Oakland Unified School District discontinued the school 
lunch program in slum schools because not enough children could afford 
to pay and the program was losing money. The resulting community 
struggle lasted more than two years, and its outcome, the reopening of 
the program and the granting of a minimum number of free lunches, has 
satisfied neither the parents nor the school board. 

The more usual practice is to raise the prices. As will be noted from 
the chart on pps. 38 & 39, there has been an increase in price in most 
states in the past five years. But increases in price result in a decline in 

41 



participation in poorer schools, eliminating th~s~ c~dren wh? just .man­
age to pay the full price. The decrease in partictpation of paymg children 
means that there is even less money available to provide free and reduced 
price lunches for needy children. 

A State School Lunch Director comments on the present financing 
system as follows: 

"The $3 to $1 matching formula is not realistic. It was never the 
intention of Congress, as can be seen from the record of the 
hearings in 1946, that children's lunch money be included in the state's 
matching amount. Lunch money, administration and supervision all 
should have been excluded from the amount provided by the state; the 
matching formula should have been "$1 to $1", with the state's contri­
bution based on taxes, state and local. The state should build, equip, 
administer and supervise for the school lunch program in addition to pro­
viding tax funds. The School Lunch Program is the only Federal program 
for which a state reporting on expenditures can co-mingle expenses such 
as cash contributions and supervision." 

The State School Lunch Director of a state in which only 15 per 
cent of the children participate in the National School Lunch Program 
says: 

"The greatest need is for state assistance to supplement Federal 
assistance. Last year, for the first time, a bill was introduced in our 
Legislature which would have granted 5¢ per lunch. This didn't get out 
of the Appropriations Committee. This bill will be reintroduced this 
year and the State School Lunch Department and the professional school 
lunch association will have to lobby for it again. Many schools, particu­
larly older urban schools, are afraid now that they'll lose money under 
the present program. A state supplement would help make it possible 
for them to balance their budgets and purchase needed equipment." 

A third State Director, in an article in his monthly newsletter last 
year, urged the following: 

" ... we believe firmly that the cost of all school food service labor 
should be budgeted in the school budget and paid for entirely by the 
cities or towns as all other school employees and should not be set 
apart or singled out as a group, to receive their salaries and benefits 
from funds provided by the children who participate in the lunch pro­
gram. "Adequate funds should be budgeted for all labor and supervision 
costs attached to the program, not charged to the program, so that 
the cost of the lunch can be kept at a minimum for the student and 
the program becomes realistically part of the educational services 
provided by the school. Students are not expected to pay for bus rides, 

42 

custodial services, or to pay the costs of librarians, nurses, guidance 
counsellors or physical education programs. School food service should 
be operated in the same manner in which athletic programs, school 
bands or vocational shop programs are conducted and financed. 
". . . In this state, approximately 70% of all communities are 
paying the entire cost of the central supervision of the school food 
service from appropriated funds and 67 cities and towns are paying sub­
stantial amounts of the total labor costs from appropriated funds. This 
means that the burden for this one educational program is removed 
from only those who participate and more realistically is assumed by all 
the taxpayers of the community. 
"At this time of the year, when school budgets are being prepared for 
town meetings, we urge those charged with the financial responsibility 
of the schools, to include the cost of the food service labor and super­
vision in the total school personnel costs, where it rightfully belongs. 
Then, the students who need and choose to participate can do so at a 
minimum cost. 

"Do not let school food service suffer from financial malnutrition by 
setting it apart from all other school activities. Accept school food ser­
vice in its rightful place at the educational banquet and· let it receive a 
fair share of he local educational dollar." 

2. VARIABLE RATES OF ASSISTANCE 

There are, however, two remedies within the School Lunch Act 
which are designed to redress the balance between the schools that 
can support the School Lunch Program and those that cannot. The first 
remedy is the use of variable rates. As noted in the section, "Some 
Facts about the National School Lunch Program", in the Introduction, 
the Regulations set a maximum rate of reimbursement for each lunch: 
"The maximum rate of reimbursement shall be 9¢ for a Type A lunch (7 ¢ 
without milk)." (It must be borne in mind, however, that the 9¢ reim­
bursement rate is no longer applicable. The rising costs of the program 
have made the Federal contribution shrink to an average of 4.5¢ per 
plate.) 

But the Regulations allow, although they do not require, making 
reimbursement at higher rates for poorer schools: "State Agencies . . . 
are authorized to reimburse from general cash-for-food assistance funds, 
at rates not to exceed 15¢ for a Type A lunch (13¢ without milk) . .. 
schools which have a high proportion of children unable to pay for their 
lunches and for which it is determined that additional financial assistance 
is needed in order that they meet program requirements . . . " 

What this regulation means is that more affluent schools could re­
ceive a lower Federal reimbursement rate, which results in higher lunch 
prices, so that poorer schools could receive a higher rate of Federal 

43 



STATE 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Florida 

Georgia 

Iowa 
Kansas 

Louisiana 

Maine 
Maryland 
Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 
New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

Ohio 
Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 
Texas 
Utah 
Vermont 
Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 

EXTRA ASSISTANCE* 

V ARIABLB RA TI!S 

x 
x 

information not clear 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

SECTION 11 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

not this year 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

•Source of information: Interviews with State School Lunch Diiectors 

44 

.AMT. SEC. 11 
FUNDS 

$ 59,306 
$ 19,054 
$ 62,383 

$100,000 
$ 9,229 
$ 90,954 
$112,744 

$ 9,354 
no figure 

$128,287 
$ 7,612 
$ 8,182 
$ 63,520 
$ 19,757 

$ 12,351 
$ 51,459 

$ 24,075 

$ 6,983 
$ 3,589 
$ 6,654 
$ 25,473 

$356,750 
$100,000 
$ 33,543 
$ 26,518 

$ 3,798 

$ 41,136 
no figure 
$ 22,907 
$ 11,000 
$ 90,000 
$ 78,324 
$ 10,328 
no figure 

$ 39,961 
$ 7,862 
$ 45,000 
$ 9,218 

reimbursement and thus cut the price correspondingly, or provide more 
free and reduced price lunches . 

It is worth repeating that variable rates are permitted, but they 
are not required. As the chart on p. 44 shows, 19 of the 39 states where 
this information was available employ variable rates. Three of the states 
which do not, South Carolina, Louisiana and New York, have substituted 
substantial state aid and are maintaining a relatively high level of free 
and reduced price lunches. 

There is also no requirement in the legislation or in the Regulations 
that where variable rates are used, they must be distributed according 
to a particular formula. The decision to use them is made at the state 
level. Some states select a few needy schools to receive the higher rate; 
some try to spread a smaller amount of the higher rate to more schools. 
Not a single state reimburses up to 15¢ a lunch in every school that 
could be classified as needy. 

In three states where variable rates are employed, Minnesota, 
Tennessee and New Jersey, the communities we studied-Minneapolis, 
Memphis and Fayette County, and Bridgeton--did not use them. 

The following five examples, taken from interviews with Local 
School Lunch Directors in communities which do employ them, will 
show how different their use can be. 

TALIAFERRO COUNTY, GEORGIA: "Eleven cents is the highest 
reimbursement allowed by the state. Taliaferro gets this. The State De­
partment of Education says they do not have the money to pay the 15¢." 

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: "We get 6¢ in our program." 

DENVER, COLORADO: "Higher rates are given to six schools based 
on their need, the number of meals served. The higher rates help provide 
low cost meals." 

DETROIT, MICHIGAN: "Higher rates go to two schools (\11 the basis 
of establishing a pilot project in a depressed neighborhO\.ld, These are 
the same two schools receiving special assistance undet Section 11. (See 
below) 

CLEVELAND, OHIO: "We receive 10¢ reimbursement for 'additional 
assistance' schools for free and sold lunches as opposed to 4¢ for free 
and sold lunches in other schools." 

Tucson, Arizona provides an interesting example of how two poor 
schools in the same community use the variable rate in quite different 
ways. 

45 



In the first school, there are 230 children of whom 100 go home 
for lunch and 130 buy their lunch. The regular price for lunch in Tucson 
is 30¢, but in this school it ranges from 10¢ to 25¢, depending on the 
income, size and other needs of the family. There are no free lunches, 
even among the neediest. Some of the children who get the lowest price 
lunch work in the kitchen to earn it. The principal believes that "every­
one should pay something, both for the family's self-respect and because 
the cost of a free lunch program in a school as poor as this would be 

prohibitive." 

But two of the parents interviewed felt that the 25¢ was prohibitive. 
One works at the school as a playground monitor during the lunch hour, 
partly to pay the 25¢ for her child's lunch. She eats her own lunch at 
home because the 50¢ charge for adults is too high. The other parent, 
who works as a domestic and at whatever else she can find to support 
her family, finds 50¢ a day for her two children "a lot. It is sometimes 
hard to get the money." When she doesn't have it, the children have to 
find something to eat at home--tortilla or soup. 

In the second school, there are 440 children, of whom 225 live 
near enough to go home for lunch. Of those who go home for lunch, 
the principal says: "This would be completely a guess, but say 60 to 
80 of these do so because they can't afford to buy lunch at school. There 
are many families in this area with ten or twelve children and they can't 
afford to give all of them money for lunch." 

Two teachers interviewed together both felt strongly that children 
who went home for lunch were not getting enough to eat. "They don't 
get meat or vegetables, it's mostly tortillas and beans." They said that 
there were many cases of extreme poverty where children live in dirt­
fioored houses and sleep in beds with three or more other children. 

Of the children who remain at school, about 25 bring something 
from home and the remainder, about 175, buy the school lunch. The 
lunch is priced at 15¢ for everybody. In addition, about six children are 
given lunch free every day. This is done on a short term basis, for ex­
ample, when a child's pa_rent is temporarily out of work. The children 
do not work in the kitchen regularly, although if help is needed, any­
body may be asked to assist. 

From these examples, two conclusions emerge: first, that there is 
no uniform standard for determining how variable rates shall be used, 
in terms of need, neighborhood, number of children served, and price 
charged. Secondly, and far more significantly, no matter how they are 

46 

COMMUNITIES 

Method of Financing and 
Percentage Free & Reduced Price Lunches •> 

COMMUNITY 

Mobile, Ala. 
Sumter County, Ala. 
Tucson, Ariz. 
Little Rock, Ark. 
Oakland, Calif. 
Richmond, Calif. 
Tulare County, Calif. 
Denver, Colo. 
Washington, D . C. 
Palm Beach County, Fla. 
Tallahassee, Fla. 
Augusta, Ga. 
Taliaferro County, Ga. 
Carbondale, ill. 
Peoria, Ill. 
Gary, Ind. 
Knott County, Ky. 
Rock Castle County, Ky. 
New Orleans, La. 
Springfield, Mass. 
Detroit, Mich. 
Minneapolis, Minn. 
Buffalo, N. Y. 
Mound Bayou, Miss. 
Jefferson County, Mo. 
Great Falls, Mont. 
Reno, Nev. 
Bridgeton, N. J . 
Albuquerque, N. M. 
Jackson, Miss. 
Charlotte, N. c. 
Cleveland, Ohio 
Philadelphia, Pa. 
Lee County, s. c. 
Sumter County, s. c. 
Fayette ounty, Tena. 
Memphis, Tenn. 
Norfolk, Va. 
La Conner, Wash. 
Marysville, Wash. 
Seattle, Wash. 
Green Bay, Wisc. 

(a) Source of information . I · . . 

D1snncr-Wroe 

x<•' 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

not answered 
x 

not answered 
not answered 

x 
x 
x 
x 

not answered 
x 

x 
x 

not answered 
x 

not answered 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

FINANCING 

JNDIVJDUAL 
SCHOOL 

x 
x<b> 

x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

% Flu!e & 
Reouceo PRICE 

4.5% 
2.8% 
9.9% 
0.0%Cc> 

21.5% 
not given 
not given 
8.6% 

51.7% 
40.5% 
7.0% 

19.0% 
26.0% 
5.0%Cd) 
none 

38.0% 
25.0% 
20.0% 
8.0% 

22.4% 
14.0% 

.6% 
5.0% 

33.0% 
not given 

16.3% 
10.0% 
1.0% 
6.5% 
4.0% 

12.5% 
11.3% 
5.7% 

47.0% 
17.0% 
17.0% 
not given 

36.7%Ce) 
22.0% 
3.1% 

.4% 
6.0% 

~~) For Negro schools, the~;~~~~ ~i~ocal Sc_hCX?I Lll;Dch Director 
(d~ AllThisfrfiee lun~hes are financed by ESEA rW::~sd district-wide, for white schools, individually 
( gure IS for high scho 1 . · · 
e) Of this percentage, ESEA pr~Jid~:\co~~~e for elementary schools was not known. 

47 



used, their application is entirely inadequate to meet the problem of 
feeding needy children in poor neighborhood schools. 

Various school lunch administrators-experts from the Department 
of Agriculture as well as individual State School Lunch Directors-have 
explained to us the value of district-wide financing of the School Lunch 
Program in preference to financing by the school. 

It is easy to understand the theoretical advantages of district-wide 
financing: All the schools in the district pool their Federal contributions 
and the children's payments. Then the money is given to each school 
based on the children's ability to pay and on the number of free lunches 
needed. Thus, children in more affluent schools would pay a higher price 
and the school would receive a small or perhaps no Federal subsidy; 
children in poorer schools would pay a lower price and their schools 

would receive a high subsidy. 

District financing in practice, however, does not work this way. Most 
of the communities we studied have district-wide financing; only eight 
said they permitted the individual school to do its own. (See chart on 
p. 4 7). But where variable rates are not allowed, district financing is 
simply a matter of central bookkeeping. In the states where it is allowed, 
it is not always practiced, and where it is practiced, the pattern has been 
to assign the higher rates to one or two or just a handful of schoolr­
sometimes the most needy, but sometimes selected for other reasons. 
Although some states, such as Colorado, have done so, in no community 
that we studied did we see a carefully worked out plan of a sliding scale 
of variable rates to permit a sliding scale of prices based upon the ability 
of the children to pay for lunch. 

3. "A DROP IN THE BUCKET" 
In 1962, when the 1946 National School Lunch Act was amended, 

one of the significant changes made was the addition of Section 11, to 
provide " . . . special assistance to schools drawing attendance from areas 
in which poor economic conditions exist, for the purpose of helping such 
schools to meet the requirement of Section 1758 of this title concerning 
the service of lunches to children unable to pay the full cost of such 

lunches." 

The Section provides for the apportionment of funds among the 
states on the basis of two factors: ( 1 ) the number of free or reduced­
price lunches served ... in the previous fiscal year, and (2) the assis-

tance need rate. 

48 

~e Sectio~ lists ~ve factors to guide each state in selecting schools 
to r~1:e Special AssIStance and the proportion in which they should 
receive it: 

( 1) the economic condition of the area from which such schools 
draw students; 

(2) the needs of il · lunches; pup s m such schools for free or reduced price 

. (h3 ) hthe
1 
percentages of free and reduced price lunches being served 

m sue sc oo s; 

. ( 4) the prevailing price of lunches in such schools as com ared 
with thei average prevailing price of lunches served in the state· !,d 

b th ( 5 'im the. need ~f. such schools for additional assistance as :effected 
y e anc1al position of their school lunch programs. 

lie Again, . ~e Dep~~nt of Agriculture has kept to its hands-off r y, r:frai;:rng from givmg suggestions, directives or guidelines about 
.ow sthuc · sc ools ought to be selected. It merely repeats in its Regula­

tions e above statements of Section 11. 

hi ;ome State Directors assign Special Assistance funds only to schools 
;ev~e :e;~est them;. oth~rs select one or two for pilot programs; others 

bill rmul.a which mclud.es such non-need factors as administrative 
car~ t Again, the result IS a crazy-quilt pattern which bears little 

~:t~e;:~ l:~kt~~ i:.egree of need. The examples below illustrate that 

~ABAMA.: Its $59,306 goes to 14 schools. Sumter County one of N: poorest m. the United States, with 70 per cent of its predo:mnantl 
gro population below the proverty level, receives no Special Assistanc?. 

~ONA: The $19,054 it received this year ran out in November With 
districte :oRney, the Sc~oo! Lunch Director decided to use it all in. one 

, e oosevelt District in Phoenix. 

ARKANSAS: Its $62 383 · 
none to Little Rock '. l ;ent .to llllle schools all over the state- but 
princi al of an el ' mc u ed m our survey, where, for example, a 
of hi p tud ementary school states that 70 per cent to 80 per cent 

s s ents come from ho · hi h th or less mes m w c e family income is $3 000 
school h per hyedar and 1!1at there have been times when children ~ his 

ave a to go without any lunch. 

;::~RNIA : It received $100,000, although its school population 
eeds New York, which received $356,750. The reason for this 

49 



disparity lies in the requirement that apportionments to the states must 
be based on the number of free and reduced price lunches served the 
previous year. Since New York provides a state subsidy to support its 
free lunch program, and California does not, poor schools in California 
receive less special assistance. 

COLORADO: Received $9,229. This money went to one school out· 
side of Denver. Here, too, the money ran out in November and the 
school had to be carried on general funds until the end of the year. 

FLORIDA: Received $90,954, which went to ten schools. The state 
approves those schools recommended by the county. ''Most schools re. 
main participants although some, if they have a mobile population or if 
there is a change of administration, are dropped." The School Lunch 
Director feels strongly that there should be national criteria developed 
to identify Sec. 11 schools, much more specific than presently defined in 
the School Lunch Act or in the USDA Regulations. 

GEORGIA: Its $112,744 went to 23 schools, but Taliaferro County, 
included in our survey, received no funds. Tailaferro is one of the poorest 
counties in the state. It has no white public school pupils: after a Federal 
court order desegregating the Taliaferro schools, the state permitted the 
county's white children to be bused to schools in a neighboring county. 

MICHIGAN: It used its $19,757 Sec. 11 appropriation in one month. 
The State Board of Education is currently asking the State Legislature 
to appropriate $2,000,000 for the School Lunch Program. 

Just as damaging as the lack of standards for distribution of Sec. 11 
funds is their pathetic inadequacy, as the chart on p. 44 shows. The 1962 
Amendment to the School Lunch Act authorized $10,000,000 for 
Special Assistance for the first year and open-ended appropriations after 
that. But Congress has never appropriated more than $2,000,000. Divided 
among 50 states, this amount is, as one school administrator put it, "A 
drop in the bucket." 

50 

5 
"TOO POOR 

TO SUPPORT A CAFETERIA" 

There are 50 million bli h . 
only 18 milli f p~ . c sc. ool children in this country and 
tryino to dete:U::.e :m ~rtic1pate ID the School Lunch Program. In 
time ~gain to the fact ~at lowwas s?•. ou: attention ~as drawn time and 
urban schools, most of the . p~c1pation wa_s particularly apparent in 
lunchtime is ·u m ID s urns. The plight of the slum child at 
of our cities ~st o~e ymptom of. the sickness of education in the slums 

lunch progr~m:g~:ealr~~~~s!;;'1th ~aren~ demanding.~ more adequate 
more. en p ace m several cities. We predict 

The schools in the gbett f . . 
in almost every way 0 oes o. our cities are neglected and inadequate 
lunch for the childre~ ne way ~s that many of them cannot provide 
facilities. who need It most because they do not have any 

The Department of Agriculture estimates that nine million children 

51 



are excluded from the National School Lunch Program because their 
schools do not have the facilities to provide lunch. These no-facility 
schools are almost invariably in the slums of our cities. 

Urban schools were built as neighborhood schools with the idea 
that children could walk to and from them and also go home for lunch. 
At the time these schools were built, it was assumed, of course, that 
waiting for these children at home at lunch time was a non-working 
mother who would provide a nutritious lunch. These old urban, neighbor­
hood schools, without kitchens and lunchrooms, are now the schools of 
the slums. They serve the children of the poor--children whose mothers 
often work and, even if they do not, cannot provide them with an adequate 
lunch at home, as educators and nutritionists acknowledge. The children 
of more affluent parents live in newer neighborhoods with newer schools 
more likely to have lunchroom facilities. And if they go home for lunch, 
they probably have a waiting mother and a good meal. 

The exclusion of urban slum schools from participation because of 
lack of facilities is borne out in the communities we studied: 

CLEVELAND, OHIO: All 136 elementary schools in the city are 
excluded from the School Lunch Program; 60 per cent of Cleveland's 
school children attend schools without lunch facilities. 

DETROIT, MICHIGAN: Only 79 out of 224 elementary schools par­
ticipate in the School Lunch Program. Of those not participating for lack 
of facilities, 78 are located in the slums. 

SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS: One third of the elementary 
schools are eliminated from the School Lunch Program because they 
have no facilities. The School Lunch Director, commenting on why 
children do not get lunch even when the school does make it available, 
states: "School Department regulations govern the number of elementary 
students who are allowed to participate. Seating accommodations and 
kitchen facilities are a factor in all schools." 

Another principal of a slum elementary school without kitchen 
facilities or a lunch program stated that "a bot lunch program would be 
desirable in a disadvantaged school of this type" but that there would be 
no space for facilities in the school which was built about sixty years 
ago. The school's breakfast program takes place in an exercise room and 
the bag lunches which children bring from home are eaten in the class­
rooms. 

An interviewer, after seeing the principal of a slum elementary 
school, wrote: "In this school only 130 out of 740 children participate 

52 

in the school lunch program and only 25 to 40 get free lunches. The 
cafeteria holds 48 children. Others eat in an anteroom and an adjacent 
classroom. Although the principal would ideally like to see an expanded 
lunch program, it must be limited by a lack of additional space." 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA: Only 44 elementary schools par­
ticipate in the School Lunch Program. The Local School Lunch Director 
could not identify schools by socio-economic neighborhoods but not a 
single one of the 12 slum schools we surveyed had facilities for a pro­
gram. The principals of these 12 non-participating schools seemed to 
feel that a lunch program or lack of one is out of their jurisdiction and 
they had little information about the nutritional needs or habits of their 
children. 

(Elementary school principal interview): This school, located in 
a low-income neighborhood, has no lunch program. It is a new school, 
dedicated May, 1966. It has a kitchen and dining room, but they are 
not used. The principal set up a "Latch-Key" program which accommo­
dates 50 children. (They are called "latch key children" because they fr<>­
quently wear latch-keys around their necks so they can get into their 
homes by themselves. Their mothers work and there is nobody at home 
to supervise them during lunch or after school. ) These children bring 
sandwiches from home plus a dollar a week. They eat their sandwiches at 
a local recreation center and are given milk. The dollar pays for the 
services of two women who supervise the children during the lunch hour. 

There are 1,136 children in the school, many of them latch-key 
children. 

The principal feels that if lunches were free, it would deny a basic 
right of parents. She did not know about the National School Lunch 
Program. 

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA: Only nine elementary schools out of 
a total of 71 participate in the School Lunch Program and 51 per 
cent of the children in the city are excluded because they go to schools 
with no facilities. 

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Only 24 out of 138 elementary schools here 
have lunchroom facilities. In some of the 114 schools excluded, the 
School Lunch Office is attempting to feed 10,000 children with bag 
lunches prepared in a central kitchen. (See Chapter IX) 

. . By conn:ast to the above examples, none of the fairly large Southern 
cities we studied-Mobile, Tallahassee, Charlotte, New Orleans, Norfolk, 
Memphis, Augusta-excluded elementary schools wholesale. In most of 

53 



these cities every school participated. In only a few, a very small number 
did not participate, because of special circumstances or on the desire of 
the local board. Only one school, in Mobile, did not participate because 
of lack of facilities. 

We asked school principals in the Northern cities listed above in 
which there were no-facility schools to estimate how many children who 
were going home for lunch were not getting an adequate lunch. Very 
few cared to make an estimate. The three or four who did said, "about 
half", "most of them", "99 per cent," and were careful to add that they did 
not know for certain or that they had never studied the problem, or had 
no figures. So we cannot document how many children from these no­
facility schools are getting an inadequate lunch or no lunch at all. But 
many of our interviewers' comments underline the feeling that "every­
body knows" that slum children who go home for lunch are not eating 
adequately. Here is one such interviewer's assessment from Philadelphia: 

"This school is located in a large, low-income housing project. The 
children all live within two blocks of the school building. There are 
many, many AFDC and relief families in the project. 

"There is no provision for food service or free milk. The children 
are not permitted to bring their lunches. It is generally known that few 
of the children have satisfactory lunches, even though they go home. 
Some of the children could pay for lunch, but those from large families 
could not. 

"Apparently, teachers and parents accept the situation as it exists 
and do not even consider a school lunch program. It would seem that if 
any neighborhood could benefit from the operation of a school lunch pro­
gram, this one certainly could. Outward appearances would indicate that 
a good bot lunch for each child would be a morale builder for the entire 
community." 

Washington, D. C. is struggling to provide bag lunches for needy 
children in no-facility schools and St. Louis is experimenting with a 
"Vita Lunch" (also a bag lunch) for a few of its slum schools. New 
York City has long had a central kitchen which provides lunches for no­
facility schools and other cities have "satellite" programs. We will ex­
amine these operations in Chapter IX. 

But most of the big cities do not seem disposed to add cafeterias 
to old schools or to experiment with "satellite programs" or central 
kitchens. (See Chapter VIII) Nor is there always a willingness to include 
them in new schools being built in the slums. As long as communities 

54 

are tied to the concept that the School Lunch Program must "pay for 
itself' out of what the children and the Federal Government contribute, 
school boards will be reluctant to install cafeterias in schools which are 
financially unable to support them. 

As one State School Lunch Director, whose state has only 15 per 
cent participation, told us: 

"In older urban schools, lack of facilities and equipment is a severely 
limiting factor. Every possible closet space is already taken for some 
activity. In newer schools where space has been set aside for lunchroom 
programs, they often have no money for equipment. The best programs 
are in rural areas where schools must have facilities to accommodate 
children who are bused to school." 

This fact is the cause of growing resentment among parents of 
children in slum schools, who are beginning to voice their objections to 
the discrimination inherent in excluding their children from the advan­
tages of participation in the School Lunch Program. 

It is also a source of growing concern to responsible voices which 
speak for the whole community, as these two recent newspaper editorials 
demonstrate: 

From an editorial entitled "Going Hungry" in the Harrisburg, Penn-
sylvania Evening News, January 22, 1968: 

"Harrisburg's junior and senior high schools have cafeterias, but the 
elementary schools in Harrisburg and a few other municipalities in the 
area do not. 

"For years it has been assumed that the in-town elementary pupil would 
walk home at lunch hour and get a nutritious lunch, which incidentally 
isn't necessarily a 'hot lunch.' But many pupils, in Harrisburg especially, 
come from poor families or from homes where the mother is away at 
work during the day. 

"The Benjamin Franklin Elementary School . . . is the city's newest 
school, built early in the 60's, but even this school lacks a cafeteria. 

". . . The problem of getting a nutritious lunch program for all ele­
mentary school pupils is now in the lap of the Harrisburg School Dis­
trict. It is a problem, of course, that should have been met years ago. 
Buildings like Ben Franklin shouldn't have gone up without cafeterias. 

"The school districts without elementary school cafeterias are not entirely 
to blame, however. The Commonwealth does not require that all schools 
have cafeterias. A municipal school district can receive its full share 
of state construction subsidy without providing cafeteria service . . . 

"The situation today on school lunches is ironic. Out in the wealthy 
suburbs, children are bused to schools which have cafeterias. Most of 

55 



these children get nutritious meals at home and in school. But in the 
municipalities where children walk to school from home, where often 
nutritious meals aren't served, these are the very children deprived of a 
school lunch program." 

From an editorial entitled "No Cafeteria" in the Ba/,timore Sun, 
November 27, 1967: 

"One of the new schools in the inner city has the space provided for a 
cafeteria and kitchen, but the cafeteria is used as four classrooms, sep­
arated by low partitions, while the ceramic-tiled kitchen is used for 
auxiliary school purposes. Not that the school is so desperately short of 
classroom space that a cafeteria had to be sacrificed. The cafeteria is not 
equipped and used because a survey in advance of the school's opening 
found the neighborhood was too poor to support a cafeteria . . . 

"While a self-supporting system may make financial sense, it does not 
make social welfare sense. The neighborhood which cannot buy enough 
lunches to support a school cafeteria is probably just the neighborhood 
in which it is important to see that the children get at least one-well­
balanced hot meal each school day ... " 

56 

6 
HIGH PRICE EQUALS 
LOW PARTICIPATION 

A second major factor in low participation in the School Lunch 
Program is the price of the lunch. Almost every State School Lunch 
Director we interviewed agreed that price increases affect over-all state 
participation very markedly. (See chart on pp. 38 & 39 which shows price 
increases over the last five years). Some Directors simply answered 
"yes" to the questions about price increases affecting participation. But 
some had more extended comments. Here they are: 

CALIFORNIA: "Our prices have increased 5¢ each year for the past 
five years. We have had a 25 per cent drop-off. It knocks out the kids 
who need it most." 

COLORADO: "One school district dropped 8 per cent when a 5¢ 
increase went into effect, but most of it was regained. Another increased 
5¢ and dropped 25 per cent in participation. When Denver increased 
from 25¢ to 30¢, there was a very sharp drop in participation." 

57 



MAINE: "I am worried by the 30¢ lunch. We would serve more children 
if it were a 25¢ program. We can't justify a lunch program if it's only for 
those who can afford it." 

MARYLAND: "Oh my, yes, indeed increases affect children's participa­
tion! We had a price increase last winter and it made our participation 
drop way down. We're still suffering from this because last year our 
total state participation increased by only .06 per cent. In previous years, 
it has increased steadily by 7 per cent to 8 per cent." 

MISSISSIPPI: In almost every case where there has been a price increase, 
the average daily participation in the program has dropped. 

MISSOURI: "Because of the price increase, we did not have our usual 
7 per cent to 8 per cent increase in participation which will affect our 
cash reimbursement per lunch in 1967-68." 

OREGON: An increase from 25¢ to 30¢ caused an average 11 per 
cent drop; however, a part of this loss was recovered the following year. 

NEW MEXICO: "Yes. Our state has had an 8 per cent to 9 per cent 
annual increase in participation. Participation decreased 2.2 per cent in 
1966-1967." 

WASHING TON: The increase caused an 18 per cent drop in partici­
pation. 

''Why Does It Have To Be All Or Nothing?" 

A parent in Detroit told our interviewer: "I have three children in 
school. I am not on the welfare and I don't want to take charity. I know 
I could afford to pay something, maybe 15¢ or 20¢ most of the time, but 
I can't pay the 35¢ for three. But they won't take some, so none of them 
get any. Why does it have to be all or nothing?" 

The USDA Regulations permit schools to offer lunches at a reduced 
price. The decision to do so is generally left up to individual schools. 
Most school principals dislike the reduced price category because of the 
additional bookkeeping and because it puts them in the position of 
having to review each child's case individually to see how much he can 
afford to pay. 

Since the USDA Regulations do not require that free and reduced 
price lunches be reported separately, most school administrators do not 
feel any obligation to set up a sliding scale of prices for lunch. It is only 
in those states and school districts where serving reduced price lunches 

58 

is encouraged and facilitated, because of the philosophy of the State or 
Local School Lunch Director, that the practice is followed. The over­
whelming majority of schools do not allow reduced price lunches. 

The only communities in our study in which lunches are served at 
a reduced price in a number of schools are: Denver, Colorado; Fayette 
County and Memphis, Tennessee; Palm Beach County and Tallahassee, 
Florida; Lee and Sumter Counties, South Carolina. Significantly, the 
State Directors in Florida, Colorado and South Carolina all believe that 
reduced price lunches are a way to help marginal income families afford a 
lunch and to save the pride of poor families who may be able to afford 
a few cents for a lunch. 

In addition, individual schools in Carbondale, Illinois; Rock Castle 
County, Kentucky; Norfolk, Virginia; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Marys­
ville, Washington; and Augusta, Georgia, serve reduced price lunches. 
In an elementary school in Augusta, where the regular price of the meal 
is 30¢, families with four children in the school automatically pay 25¢ 
each and families with more than four, 20¢. 

We found 210 schools in 30 school districts which do not offer 
reduced price lunches (excluding the school systems and the individual 
schools mentioned above, schools which had no lunch programs, and 
those in which all the lunches were reduced because of the use of variable 
rates, Sec. 11 or ESEA funds). 

Lunch From Home 
Many of the children who cannot afford the price of lunch at school 

bring a sandwich from home--a "sack lunch." In the more than 500 
parent interviews conducted in this study, only three parents stated that 
they prepared a sack lunch because their children liked it better than 
the school lunch. The rest all said they fixed one because it was cheaper, 
or because they could not afford the price of the school lunch. 

The schools above were those in which, according to the interviewer's 
comments, the lunchrooms were clean and attractive, the lunches were 
tasty, and the serving lines were not too long. The parents' interviews 
in these schools all stated that when lunch was fixed at home, it was 
because it was cheaper than buying it at school. About half the parents 
interviewed stated that they would prefer their children to purchase lunch 
at school, but that the price was prohibitive. 

Here is an around-the-country sample of the number of children 
bringing sack lunches from home: 

59 



LOCATION OP No. OP BUY BRING 

Snrol!NTS LUNCH LUNCH PR.Ice. SCHOOL (a) 

Mobile, Ala. 714 200 360 $ .30 

Tucson, Ariz. 834 319 342 .30 

Little Rock, Ark. 473 250 150 .35 

Oakland, Calif. 445 150 120 .40 

Richmond, Calif. 488 265 150 .35 

Denver, Colo. 850 450 250 .30 

Palm Beach County, Fla. 152 130 -0- .20 

Tallahassee, Fla. 152 80 70 .40 

Rock Castle County, Ky. 360 360 -0- .20 

Knott County, Ky. 608 580 25 .25 

New Orleans, La. 512 385 34 .20 

Detroit, Mich. 1,600 750 400 .35 

Minneapolis, Minn. 860 430 430 .35 

Reno, Nev. 750 375 300 .35 

Albuquerque, N. M. 238 90 78 .30 

Charlotte, N. C. 852 650 160 .25 

Fayette County, Tenn. 496 340 100 .25 

Memphis, Tenn. 1,780 800 500 .30 

Seattle, Wash. 558 200 238 .35 

Green Bay, Wisc. 1,142 250 860 .35 

(a) All are elementary schools except those in Minneapolis and Reno which are junio r high 
schools. Information is from interviews with school principals. 

As the sample shows, the lower the price, the higher the number 
of pupils who buy the school lunch. In two schools where the price was 
20¢, participation was 100 per cent; in the third, it was 75 per cent. 
In three schools where the price was 25¢, the participation was 95 per 
cent at one, 76 per cent at the second, and 68 per cent at the third. 
At 30¢, participation drops sharply, ranging from 27 per cent, 37 per 
cent, 38 per cent, 45 per cent to 52 per cent. Once the price went over 
30¢, there was not a great difference in participation in these schools. 
The participation rate at 35¢ was 21 per cent, 35 per cent, 47 per cent, 
50 per cent; and the rate at 40¢ was 33 per cent. 

In the six schools where the price was 25¢ and below, the hmch 
program was subsidized above the normal Federal contribution through 
higher variable rates, Sec. 11 funds and through ESEA money, and in the 
case of New Orleans, through a state subsidy. 

Our interviews with parents bear out the fact that for marginal 
families, not on welfare but struggling along on a modest income--and 
especially where there are several public school children-the 5¢ price 
differential between 25¢ and 30¢ is one they cannot bridge. In Albu-

60 

querque, New Mexico, parents and community leaders petitioned the 
school board last fall to establish a 15¢ price in low-income areas. (The 
school superintendent replied that a price reduction was not possible 
"under present circumstances.") And the Arizona State School Lunch 
Director said that if the price were decreased to 10¢, almost 100 per 
cent of the children in the state could afford to participate. 

There are, of course, other factors which influence school lunch par-
ticipation. In some overcrowded schools, teachers, parents and inter-
viewers mentioned long waits on the cafeteria line, generally because of a 
shortage of help. In some schools, interviewers felt that the lunch period 
was too short when it was only half an hour. But on the elementary 
school level, at least, price seems by far to be the major factor determining 
participation. 

61 



7 
TEENAGE 
TASTES 

Many State Directors are concerned that high schools are dropping 
out of the School Lunch Program and are shifting to a la carte service or 
vending machines which permit students to buy inadequate meals. Others 
have forbidden schools participating in the School Lunch Program to 
open snack bars or vending machines during the lunch period. 

In high schools and in some junior high schools, the reasons for 
participation or lack of it are not easy to isolate. Many high schools 
have "open campuses", i.e., the students may come and go during the 
lunch hour as they please. Under these circumstances, it is only possible 
to count how many students purchase their lunch; it is not always pos­
sible to determine how many of the balance bring a sandwich or go 
home or purchase lunch at a nearby snack stand. The presence of soft 
drink and snack machines on the grounds of some schools is another 
complicating factor. In addition, high schools in eight communities in 

62 

our study, are excluded from the National School Lunch Program, pre­
ferring either to provide a la carte items for the students to purchase, or 
providing no food service at all. 

The following sampling shows the wide range of eating patterns in 
high schools across the country: 

SUMTER COUNTY, ALABAMA: This is a very poor all-Negro high 
school with 637 students. ESEA provides 571 free lunches daily. The 
principal estimates that about 50 children are not eligible for free lunch 
and don't eat anything. Three go home for lunch. There is a cracker and 
candy machine and the principal estimates that about ten children pur­
chase a snack from it in lieu of or in addition to lunch. Profits from the 
machine go to the general school fund for this particular school. How a 
price increase would affect participation cannot be answered, since no 
Negro school in Sumter County had a lunch program before this year, 
when ESEA funds were made available. 

TUCSON, ARIZONA: Tucson is one of the communities mentioned 
above which excludes high schools from the School Lunch Program "be­
cause of the cost and the belief they are not necessary." This is a 
double-shift high school in which most of the students eat either after 
school is over or before it starts. Of the 2,590 students, however, about 
635 bring a sack lunch from home. Interestingly, this high school has 
kitchen facilities which are used to prepare lunches for elementary schools 
in Tucson's satellite program. 

MOBILE, ALABAMA: This high school has a closed campus and 
no snack machines. It is in a poor Negro neighborhood. Of the 1,600 stu­
dents, 569 buy lunch, 270 bring lunch and the rest cannot afford to do 
either. The price of the lunch is 30¢ and has not been increased recently. 
There are no free or reduced price lunches this year, although in previous 
years about 5 per cent were free. 

KNOTT COUNTY, KENTUCKY: This is a closed campus school in 
a rural area. About 50 of the 585 pupils bring sack lunches from home; 
82 per cent of the students buy lunch which costs 25¢. There are 70 
to 80 free lunches served daily. 

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: This is a closed campus with 870 students. 
It has a soft drink machine which makes a $20 profit per month which 
is used for school projects, such as trips. The school cafeteria serves 
regular school lunches to about 200 children daily, of which 100 are 
served free. The price of the lunch is 45¢. When the price was raised, 
"quite a few" students stopped buying the lunch. "Not many" students 

63 



bring sack lunches from home. The school also serves a la carte items 
such as hamburgers, pizza, tamales, malts, cake, etc. "Many more" pur­
chase from the a la carte line than from the plate lunch line. 

(The interviewer comments): "This is a new, clean, very pleasant 
school. The food [plate lunch] is fairly attractive, and adequate in 
taste. It was not very hot. I think the plate menu is very heavy in starch 
and an adequate portion of meat is not served every day. There is variety 
in the s~ack foods offered, but far too many sweet and starchy items. 
Some ~hildren buy very inadequate selections-perhaps cookies or po. 
tato chips only. I also object to the choice of sweetened ice tea offered 
to the plate lunch children. The kitchen was clean and well run." 

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA: This is a brand new school with 2,400 
students. It has an open campus and double shift. Some students go home 
for lun,ch; some are on morning shift and eat off campus after school· 
some are on afternoon shift and eat off campus before school; some brin~ 
a bag lunch. The cafeteria manager stated that there are soft drink and 
cracker machines and she thinks "many" children purchase a bar of 
c~dy and a coke for lunch. The machines make a 30 per cent profit 
which goes to the cafeteria fund. 

Four hundred children eat the 45¢ plate lunch daily; 400-500 stu­
dents, over and above the 400 who eat the School Lunch Program lunch, 
purchase hamburgers, hot dogs, tamales, pizza, enchiladas, jello, cookies 
and cake. 

The school gives no free or reduced price lunches. The cafeteria 
manager estimates that 20 per cent of the children, of whom 18 per cent 
are Negro, eat little or nothing for lunch. 

DENVER, COLORADO: This is an open campus of 2,500 students of 
whom an average of 700 per day eat the plate lunch. The price is 35¢. 
Half the students purchase a la carte items· 100 go home for lunch· about 
625 bring a .sack lunch, and the balance a;e unaccounted for off c~mpus, 
perhaps buymg snack lunches from machines or snack bars. There are no 
£r:ee lun~hes except in a rare emergency. This, according to the inter­
viewer, is ~; ~nly. open campus high school in Denver. The principal 
states that, Puce increase made participation drop a lot," but gives no 
percentages. 

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNEsOTA: This high school has 1,100 students, 
of whom .40 go home for lunch; 130 are on special shifts and so eat off 
campus either before or after school. The price of the plate lunch is 35¢ 
?nd about 500 purchase this. The balance buy a la carte item<;. A price 
increase caused a 10 per cent decrease in participation. 

64 

ETROIT, MICHIGAN: This is a two-shift school of 1,800 pupils: 3.00 
D d ts on mornina shift eat off campus after school; 400 students bnng stu en o . . 
a sack lunch from home; 200 students are given a free lunch. The remain-
. 800 students purchase the lunch at the regular price of 45¢. The 
1.0gbool carries a la carte items, but they may be purchased only after the 
SC af .. 

bool lunch is purchased. Thus, only 8 per cent of the c etena income 
sc . N d . . from a la carte items. There are no vending machines. o ecrease m 
JS • , d 
participation was noted when the pnce mcrease . 

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA: This is a poor Negro high school with 
1,800 students. It has a closed campus; nobody g~es home. for lunch; 
no a la carte items are sold; and there are no vending machmes. !Mee 
hundred children purchase the plate lunch at 30¢. About 300 children 
bring a sack lunch from home. Twenty free lunches per .day are .available 
at this school and the students are required to work m the kitchen to 
earn them. The rest of the children "do not eat because ~hey c~~ot 
afford to pay." A recent increase in price did cause a drop in participa­
tion, but the principal could not estimate by what per cent. (It should 
be noted that the state subsidy applies only to elementary schools.) 

ROCK CASTLE COUNTY, KENTUCKY: This is an open-campus 
elementary through high school with 880 students. Six hundred students 
purchase the plate lunch at 25¢; 25 pay 15¢ for the plate lunch; and 
7 S get a free lunch. There are no a la carte items. Only five students go 
home. Ten students bring lunch from home. "Some" students purchase 
their lunches from pop-corn and coke machines in the school building. 
The coke and pop-com machines each make a profit of $1,000 a year. 
In 1967, the profits financed the senior class trip. Previous to that, the 
money was applied to school salaries. The balance of the students-about 
120-purchase food off campus. 

CARBONDALE, ILLINOIS: This is an open campus. Of the 505 stu­
dents, about 165 go home for lunch, one-third (about 160) eat their 
lunch at nearby snack stands, and the remaining 160 purchase the plate 
lunch for 30¢. There are no a la carte items, but there is a candy ma­
chine which mak'es a profit of $100 a year that is given to the Girls 
Honor Society. Five students help in the kitchen to earn a free lunch, 
which they are "tactfully" required to do and seem to "enjoy participa­
tion." Price has not increased in recent years. 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA: There are 1,540 regular students, plus 
200 technical students on special shifts. There are no vending machines 
and no a la carte items. About 175 students go home for lunch; 250 
bring a sack lunch. Only 30 free lunches a day are available, although 

65 



the principal estimates that 125 children daily bring nothing from home 
and do not purchase any lunch. They either do not eat or they persuade 
their friends to share a plate lunch with them. About 800 students pur. 
chase the plate lunch which is priced at 45¢. The principal estimates that 
the last price increase caused a 15 per cent drop in participation. 
SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA: This is a poor Negro ele. 
mentary-high school with a closed campus. Most of its 1,710 students are 
in the high school and 800 of them have been declared eligible for free 
lunches which are funded by ESEA. There are, however, only 519 free 
ESEA lunches available each day, so these are rotated among the 800 
children, enabling most to eat two or three times a week. Of the 800 
children who are not eligible for free ESEA lunches, about 33 per day 
are given free or reduced price lunches out of the regular School Lunch 
Program if there is anything left over; about 750 purchase lunch at 20¢, 
and 75 bring a sack lunch. Those who don't eat, play outside. The 
principal states that "When we tried charging 25¢ one year instead of 
20¢, 30 per cent stopped eating." 

There are soft drink, cracker and candy machines which show a 
$100 monthly profit. The machines, which are available only to high 
school students, are used to support the high school's athletic program. 
No a la carte items are served. The popularity of the vending machines 
in this instance is a result not of teenage tastes, but of necessity. That is, 
the child who is not eligible for a free ESEA lunch, and whose parents 
cannot fix him a sack lunch, may be able to come by a nickel a day. 
A candy bar can keep him going until supper that night, if any. 

The above examples include all possible combinations of high school 
lunch time patterns in marginal to poor schools. It should surprise no 
one that on a closed campus with no vending machines and no a Ia carte 
items, participation is higher than on an open campus with vending 
machines. It is interesting to note, however, that in the high school with 
an open campus and vending machines, but with plate lunch priced at 
25¢, 600 out of 880 students purchased the plate lunch. 

The popularity of a Ia carte items carried by the school cafeteria 
certainly attests to the teenage preference for bot dogs, hamburgers and 
pizza over vegetables and fruits. While we did not ask our interviewers 
(since they are not qualified nutritionists) to review the contents of the 
plate lunch from the nutritional standpoint, many of them, writing as 
parents of teenage children, commented that while the plate lunch was 
adequate in quantity for a first or second grade child, in fact, more than 
adequate, it was entirely inadequate for a teenage appetite. 

66 

Reviewing these examples, we can see that teenage tastes are certainl! 
element in low school lunch participation. The part they play JS 

:-ghtened by soft drink and cracker-candy machines in school buildings 
e~ by permitting students to buy a la carte items instead of, rather than 

: addition to, lunch. But they are not the major element. 

There are many factors in addition to food habits which influence 
whether adolescents will eat school lunch: price, quality, variety, atmos­
phere in the cafeteria, whether the campus is closed, time ~~wed, etc. 
The problem deserves special study. There may be commumttes where 
the pattern is to go in cars to drive-ins at lunch t~e. But in many more, 
we believe that a nutritionally· adequate food service program at a com­
petitive price would attract the patronage of teenagers. 

67 



8 
EFFORTS TO 
INCREASE PARTICIPATION 

In almost every community we found officials who are concerned 
about the low participation in the National School Lunch Program but 
are bafHed about how to increase it (See charts on pps. 69 and 70 for 
participation figures by state and community.) 

There is very little planning or research going on in the National 
School Lunch Program, particularly on the subject of participation and 
how it relates to nutritional needs, price, age, social class, food habits, 
parental understanding. Many State Directors commented on this lack 
of professional study and could only speculate on the answers to our 
questions about participation. 

In the absence of research and planning, efforts to increase participa­
tion tend to be on trial and error basis and are often tied into Federal 
programs under the control of other agencies. Efforts to increase partici­
pation generally fall into three categories: 

68 

PARTICIPATION (BY STATE) <•> 

No. OF Cmu>RBN 
(AVERAGB DAILY No. OP CHILDREN 

ATIENDANCB) PARTICIF ATING STA'Il! 

Alabama 862,041 495,239 

ArkallSas 411,903 260,647 

California 2,231,898 778,978 

Colorado 461,509 193,000 

Florida 928,873 677,022 

Georgia 988,459 720,000 

Illinois no figure given 661,000 

Iowa 638,000 327,175 

Kansas 519,667 242,000 

Louisiana 909,615 676,104 

Maine 210,590 87,119 
Maryland 790,927 280,932 
Massachusetts l,055,536(b) 371,569 
Michigan 2,033,982 536,016 
Minnesota 782,962 440,000 
Missouri 829,585 450,707 
Mississippi 536,000 345,000 
Montana 171,806 52,527 
Nebraska 304,065 135,290 
New Hampshire 138,497(<) no figure given 
New Jersey 1,345,000 234,028 
New Mexico 249,984 104,123<•> 
New York 2,762,500 1,220,000 
North Carolina 1,101,988 765,000 
Ohio 2,174,110 725,439 
Oklahoma 536,622 245,000 
Oregon 439,989 189,671 
Pennsylvania 2,280,137 832,889 
Rhode Island 158,437 33,000 
South Carolina 598,487 430,000 
South Dakota 150,000 70,000 
Tennessee 668,393 473,057 
Texas 220,869 802,154 
Utah 277,590 142,991 
Virginia 916,212 502,443 
Washington 698,049 267,583 
West Virginia 322,000 145,000 
Wisonsin 865,771 323,384 

(a) Source of information: Interviews with State School Lunch Directors 
(b) Enrollment, not ADA, figure 
(c) Enrollment 
(d) May include private and parochial schools 
(e) Includes private schools 

69 

% CHILDREN 
PARTICIPATING 

58% 
63% 
35% 
42% 
73% 
73% 

50.9% 
41% 
74% 
41% 

38.7% 
35.2% 

26% 
56% 
54% 
64% 
31% 
44% 

35-40% ( d ) 

15% 
41% <•> 
44% 
77% 
33% 
46% 
43 % 
32% 
21 % 
72% 
46% 
71 % 
36% 
52% 
55% 
38% 
45% 
37% 



PARTICIPATION (BY COMMUNITY) <•> 

AYEllAGB No. OP 
DAILY CHILDREN 

COMMUNITY ATrnNDANCB P AltTICIPATING 

Mobile, Ala. 75,310 43,059 
Sumter County, Ala. S,504 4,242 
Tucson, Ariz. 52,425(b) 13,317 
Little Rock, Ark. 25,148 8,830 
Oakland, Calif. 59,04l (C) 13,384 
Denver, Colo. 96,015 20,623 
Washington, D. C. 143,976 64,439 
Palm Beach County, Fla. 56,459 41,646 
Tallahassee, Fla. 20,258 13,373 
Augusta, Ga. 36,277 23,319 
Taliaferro County, Ga. 517 400 
Carbondale, Ill. 3,707 1,906 
Gary, Ind. 49,132 7,670 
Knott County, Ky. 4,560 3,400 
Rock Castle County, Ky. 3,084 2,187 
New Orleans, La. 106,795 51,360 
Springfield, Mass. 31,778 11,643 
Detroit, Mich. 294,969 56,000 
Minneapolis, Minn. 68,540 14,659 
Jackson, Miss. 40,000 29,800 
Mound Bayou, Miss. 1,717 950 
Great Falls, Mont. 18,135 5,149 
Reno, Nev. 26,351 15,218 
Bridgeton, N. I. 6,500 3,551 
Albuquerque, N. M. 73,000 27,130 
Buffalo, N. Y. 73,000 13,000 
Charlotte, N. C. 79,553 33,244 
Cleveland, Ohio 147,572 36,195 
Philadelphia, Pa. 250,000 14,000 
Lee County, S. C. 5,448 3,676 
Sumter County, S. C. 10,000 7,000 
Fayette County, Tenn. 6,925 1,410 
Memphis, Tenn. 121,032 34,604 
Donna, Texas 3,547 970 
Norfolk, Va. 54,996 21,287 
La Conner, Wash. 459 225 
Marysville, Wash. 3,926 1,078 
Seattle, Wash. 95,245 26,759 
Green Bay, Wisc. 19,828 3,008 

(a) Source of information: Interviews with Local School Lunch D irectors 
~b) Enrollment figure; no ADA figure given 
c) Enrollment 

70 

% PAllTio. 
lPATINo 

57% 
76% 
25% 
35% 
23% 
21% 
45% 
74% 
66% 
64% 
77% 
51% 
16% 
75% 
71% 
48% 
37% 
19% 
21% 
75% 
55% 
29% 
58% 
54% 
37% 
18% 
39% 
25% 

8% 
67% 
70% 
20% 
20% 
27% 
39% 
49 % 
27% 
28% 
15% 

1. Bringing non-facility schools into the program by adding facili­
ties. In three years, Tennessee reduced the number of nonfacility schools 
from 300 to 45. A number of isolated rural schools have been brought 
into the program in this way. Here is one report from Knott County, 

J{entucky: 
"This is a neat, attractive little school at the end of the worst road I 
have ever traveled on. Last summer they built a kitchen at the back. 
It is well-equipped, clean, attractive. The food looked and smelled de­
licious. One woman is employed as cook and is aided by her daughter 
in the Neighborhood Youth Corps. The cook, who was trained in a local 
summer program, is paid through Title I of ESEA. All 20 pupils eat; 
the charge is 10¢. The children get extra milk free." 

(On the other hand, there are new schools being built without facilities. 
Often these schools are in rapidly growing suburban areas which run out 
of construction money and skimp by cutting out the cafeteria.) 

2. Providing meals from other Federal programs which has in­
creased participation substantially. In Madison County, Tennessee, which 
we did not study, we learned that participation increased 100 per cent 
when the ESEA Title I program began. (See Chapter XI for a discus­
sion of these Federal programs) 

3. Reorganizing arrangements for preparing and serving foods, 
School systems have created central kitchens, have adopted "satellite 
programs"-a kitchen in one school prepares meals for neighboring 
schools-and are experimenting with "convenience foods," sometimes 
frozen, or sack lunches which require a minimum of space and equip­
ment. There is vigorous discussion among professionals about the rela­
tive merits of these different arrangements. Some School Lunch Directors 
say that there is no substitute for the individual kitchen at each school, 
an arrangement which they believe offers both nutrition education and 
the integration of food service into the total educational program. 

We have no judgment to offer, but it is clear that school systems 
must find alternative ways of bringing food to children now excluded 
from the program on a vastly expanded scale. We welcome these experi­
ments, although we are aware of the problems, as indicated by the 
following reports from New York, St. Louis and Washington, D. C. 

New York: The Central Kitchen 

The central kitchen operation in New York serves only elementary 
schools. It prepares about 150,000 lunches per day and distributes them 
by truck to 650 schools located throughout the five boroughs of the city. 
All the lunches are prepared in one kitchen, located in Long Island City. 

71 



This bu~ding was originally used as a temporary soup kitchen during the 
Depression, but in 1935, 15 central kitchens were consolidated into one 
at the Long Island City Building. 

Under th.e best of circumstances, the problem of producing, packing 
and transporting such enormous quantities of food over a large area 
would be enormous. And the central kitchen is not able to operate under 
the best conditions. For example, in order to have the lunch prepared in 
time for delivery at noon, workers must begin their preparations at about 
3: 00 a.m., and so the bread used in the preparation of the sandwiches 
is day-old bread. By the time the sandwiches reach the schools the fol­
lowing day, the bread is pretty well dried out. Lunch generally consists 
of soup, a sandwich, and dessert--canned fruit, or ice cream, or graham 
crackers. The price is 25¢. 

The trucks in which the lunch is delivered are not refrigerated, which 
severely limits the types of food which may be used in the program. Milk 
may be in non-refrigerated trucks for several hours before delivery, and 
then is not always refrigerated at school. Mechanical failures- in the 
kitchen, the trucks, and the heating plates used to warm up the soup in 
individual schools are old- are a constant problem. 

Here is an evaluation of the central kitchen operation in New York 
City prepared by the Economic Research Service of the Department of 
Agriculture: 

"The mass production of meals from one basic menu at one site with 
limited equipment, restricts the variety of menus th;t can be offered. 
~oreover, the lag between the time food is prepared in the Central 
Kitchen and received by the students may be five or more hours. In 
~e absence of temperature controls during this period, further limita­
tions. o~ ~he selection of food and on design of menus must be imposed 
to mmlllllZe the possibility of contamination. 

"· · · A never-ending problem is that of repair and maintenance of 
equipment in many scattered locations. Every year, almost every school 
has lunchroom furniture to be repaired and maintained. Kitchen sinks 
beco~e rusty _and clogged. Refrigerated milk coolers require frequent 
electrical repairs. The Bureau of School Lunches also has no direct 
authority over certain persons whose duties are only partially devoted 
to the lunch program. For example, custodians or janitors are responsible 
for sweeping and waxing lunchroom and kitchen floors at the receiver 
schools, but the Bureau of School Lunches neither pays for nor directs 
these services. 

"Some d?nated commodities cannot be effectively utilized within the 
central kitchen. The most outstanding example here is meat, although 
some donated meat now is being used in schools authorized to serve 
the 'augmented meal' [which costs 27¢ instead of 25¢] . 

72 

"Without considerable moderniza~on and expansion, the current Central 
Kitchen cannot be counted on to mcrease the number of_ meals produced 

r day. The apparent lack of both plans and enthusiasm for a new 
pe d expanded central kitchen to serve the elementary schools of New 
~ork City suggests that Bureau of School Lu°:ches and Board of Educa­
tion officials responsible for long-range pl~nnmg general!~ do not favor 
the perpetuation of the single Central Kitchen concept m New York 
City." 
In schools served by the central kitchen, there is no a la carte .ser-

. Milk is sold separately. No lunches are served at reduced pnces, 
w~ 1 . 
but 75 per cent of the lunches served in elementary schoo s ~re .given 

fr to needy children. The Department of Welfare sets the cntena for 
ee d . . b 

determining which children may receive free lunches an 1t relill. urses 
the Board of Education for the cost of free meals to welfare children. 

In schools served by the central kitchen, the campus is open and 
children are free to go home for lunch. However, children whose parents 
work or who would not get an adequate lunch at home for other reasons 
are permitted to stay in school and eat a free lunch, even though they 
may live only a block or two from school. 

The lack of facilities in the schools, which was responsible for the 
creation of the central kitchen, is also responsible for the poor conditions 
under which the children eat their lunches. According to a "Lunchroom 
Study" conducted by the United Parents Associations of New York in 
May, 1967: 

"The physical facilities of our schools were not planned to feed the 
number of children now eating lunch in school. Fifty-two per cent of 
all children eat in school. Of those who eat in school, over 60% do not 
eat in lunchrooms. Most of them eat in the auditorium where they have 
to balance their lunch on their knees. One-third of the schools schedule 
more than one lunch session. The recurring factor found in most of the 
responses [to the survey] was the lack of space to handle the lunch pro­
gram effectively. 
"Half of the children bringing lunch from home regularly cannot pur­
chase milk to have with lunch. Where milk is available, one in five 
schools reported that it was not kept refrigerated until lunch time. 
"Supervision of children during and after lunch is handled by school aides 
with a teacher or assistant principal 'on duty', frequently no place near 
where the children are eating or playing . . . In one school children 
remain in their seats with fingers on lips until it is time to line up. In 
others . . . children roam the neighborhood . . . Almost universally, 
parents complained of inadequate supervision." 
To this United Parents Association report, a New York City nutri­

tionist adds this comment: 
"I have seen children, dressed in snowsuits, with their books on their 
laps, trying to eat the Central Kitchen lunch in their auditorium seats. 

73 



The sight of a seven year old child struggling to eat broad noodle soup 
with a tiny plastic spoon fully dressed in a hot auditorium and juggling 
bis books would be ludicrous if it wasn't so pathetic." 

St. Louis: The Vita Lunch Program 

While St. Louis was not included in our study, we had heard a 
great deal about the new "Vita Lunch" program, and we sent a repre­
sentative to look into its operation. Her report follows: 

"Last year the city had 150 schools with 55 stations. The School Lunch 
Program was facing a crisis. They were getting only 4¢ Federal reim­
bursement and were charging 30¢ a lunch. They had demonstration pro­
grams in four schools in a low income-low rent housing development, 
but this three-year demonstration program was ending and there were 
no funds with which to continue it. 

"More than twice as many children were fed free lunches in these demon­
stration schools as in the rest of the system. With increased prices of 
wages and food, they were faced with the problem of increasing the 
cost to 35¢. 

"In hunting for a cheaper way to feed the children who were already 
buying lunches and the few who were receiving free or reduced price 
lunches, the Board of Education bit on the 'Vita Lunch' idea. They know 
their public relations. Vita Lunch is just a nice name for a plain sack 
lunch. (The word 'sack' is plainly taboo around St. Louis.) 

"Last fall, six schools with good facilities were chosen to refrigerate and 
deliver the lunches to the individual schools. Only the elementary schools 
are participating in this program. The high schools receive commodities 
but have only a la carte lunches. 

"The lunch consists of one sandwich made with two ounces of protein 
and butter, a vegetable or salad, a fruit, either canned or fresh, and two 
cookies. Milk is also served. The sandwich is made with the butter on 
one half of the sandwich with no filling, and the protein (something like 
bologna) with no butter is on the other side. The director said that the 
lunch is perfect nutritionally and that by and large the children like it. 
He did say, however, that they were not selling as many as they sold of 
the hot lunches. He said it would take education to break the myth that 
bot food was better. 

"The director considered this a better program because now the lunches 
were uniform throughout the city, whereas the old program was 'a great 
hodge-podge.' Second, he said the lunch could be served anywhere and 
did not require a lunch room. The only equipment necessary in each 
school was a refrigerator for the milk. And most important was the sav­
ing in money, particularly in salaries. The lunch is served for 25¢. To 
me the lunch was not a bargain, especially when compared with the 
larger lunch and bigger portions served in New York. 

"I was taken on the tour by one of the supervisors who checks on food 
preparation. Th.is supervisor told me that she bad been suffering for 

74 

some years with hook worm and bad been back in the hospital the 
week before for treatment. I wondered about health precautions. 

"We visited two schools, a poor Negro school and a middle class school. 
Both of these schools had better faci lities and so were used in the prep­
aration of the Vita Lunch. 

"The poor school was in the center of an enormous low-rent housing 
project in the inner city. On that day, although 1,045 children attend the 
school, only 67 bought the Vita Lunch; 12 were given free lunches; 
and two made partial payments of $1.00 per month. 

"During the forty-five minute lunch period, school is dismissed. One 
teacher was on duty in the balls. Two aides and a cashier were in the 
lunch room giving out sacks. (The aides are paid from ESEA money). 
There was bedlam in the lunch room. At the end of the period, the 
children came back to school, many with cracker jacks or other junk 
bought at the corner. 

"I waited for the principal who bad gone home to lunch. He could not 
possibly have been less interested in hungry children. He maintained 
that the children and their parents bad it a lot better ban be-that most 
of them were on welfare and could get free treatment at the city hos­
pital. 

"I questioned the principal about bow they identify the children for free 
lunches. A letter is sent home telling parents they may apply. If they 
come to school and apply, they are then investigated by the school 
social worker, and if found eligible are given free or reduced lunches. 
So few apply that the social worker rarely is busy on her three after­
noons a week that she spends at the school. The principal was appalled 
when I asked if she spent any time trying to find out who the hungry 
children were. 

"I returned to the lunch room to look at the food preparation. Lunch 
was over. The janitor was sweeping a very dusty, dirty floor. Less than 
ten feet away, ladies were filling little cups with potato salad for 
Thursday's lunch. This was Tuesday! Since it was a full two days away, 
I did th.ink they might have waited until the sweeping was done. Others 
were frying chicken, also for the Thursday lunch, wrapping it and put­
ting it in the refrigerators. (The refrigeration space has not proved 
adequate and a new refrigerator was being installed.) Much labor­
very amateurish-went into the wrapping. The quantities of food were 
so small that I could not imagine a boy of twelve being even a bit 
satisfied. 

"The second school I visited was a high school. Lunches were being fixed 
for elementary schools, using the same kitchen that serves a la carte 
items to the high school students. The high school was planning to serve 
the chicken livers from the chickens the Vita Lunch was frying, so there 
seemed to be good coordination about the use of the food between the 
two. 

"In this kitchen, I was shown Wednesday's lunch which had already 
been prepared and refrigerated. Here, lunch was arranged on a small 

75 



paper tray. None of the food was individually wrapped, but the wh?le 
tray was sealed with Saran Wrap. The trays were much more attractive 
than the paper sack, and also there was much less work. Again_, I was 
astonished at the size of the helpings: tiny slivers of celery, the tmy cup 
of canned fruit, only half full, the unhappy-looking bologna sandwich. 
As in the other school, the chicken for Thursday's lunch, two days later, 
was being prepared. 

"There is great fear on the part of all the people with whom I talked 
that some child might get a free lunch who could afford to pay. Little 
effort was made to keep the poor child from embarrassment. A directive 
went out for teachers to sell tokens and for all children to have the same 
token, but they don't do this. The paying children pay cash and the free 
children are given tokens. 

"I came to St. Louis at the same time that two doctors from the Com­
municable Disease Center were there to investigate a case of food poison­
ing which had hospitalized some 38 children the week before. ;niey had 
eaten turkey salad sandwiches. If they followed the same policy, those 
sandwiches were two days old. Considering the time spent in prepara­
tion and in delivery when they are not refrigerated, that's pretty bad. 

"The people were very hospitable, everyone extremely kind. Of course 
they were bothered about the food poisoning. 

"I know it is only the first year of the program, but I would not recom­
mend it unless they make some drastic improvements. 

"All of the food service units, I was told, are short of space and refrigera­
tion. The health standards leave much to be desired. After my visit, no 
child of mine would have eaten that food." 

Washington, D. C.: The Sack Lunch 

There are 138 elementary schools in Washington, and 24 of them 
participate in the National School Lunch Program. The remaining 114 
schools are served by a central kitchen operation which prepares 10,000 
sack lunches a day, and four schools have experimental pre-packaged 
food programs. 

Washington's sack lunches are available free to needy children who 
are qualified by the Welfare Department. They account for the major 
part, 51.7 per cent, of lunches distributed. Other children in these 114 
schools who are not qualified by the Welfare Department either go home 
for lunch or bring something from home. 

The Washington School Lunch Director states: "The number of 
children on free lunches varies. Although all welfare children are entitled 
to a free lunch, the parents must apply for it. Thus not all get lunch who 
should or could." No reduced price lunches are served in the Washington, 
D. C. elementary schools, not even in the bag lunch operation. 

76 

We encountered general satisfaction with the way the sack lunch 
program functioned in the elementary schools. High School Principals 
hoped that many needy children could be included in an expanded free 
lunch program. The number of free lunches available to upper grade 
students is severely limited. 

Although parents and teachers seemed satisfied with the sack lunch, 
administrators complained of its inefficiency. Since Washington does not 
have adequate warehousing facilities, food is not purchased wholesale 
from manufacturers, but from middle-men vendors at close to regular 
retail prices, we were told. This makes for inefficient, expensive buying 
procedures and it was felt that full value is not being received for the 
money expended. Our volunteers, however, did not feel competent to 
evaluate this aspect of the operation. 

In addition to the above major programs, we encountered several 
smaller central kitchen operations. These are in: Tucson, which serves all 
its elementary schools from two central kitchens; Oakland, which serves 
25 of its 65 elementary schools from one central kitchen; Augusta, which 
serves 49 of its schools through a central kitchen, and Rock Castle 
County, which serves eight elementary schools. These four systems all 
serve hot lunches which are heated at steam tables in the individual 
schools. Our interviewers comment that the system works well, noting 
no more mechanical or technical difficulties than are reported in schools 
where lunches are prepared in the schools' own kitchen. 

Among the communities in our study employing the "satellite pro­
gram" are Little Rock, for one school; Denver, for seven schools; Talla­
hassee, for two schools; New Orleans, for 27 schools. (This program will 
end as kitchen facilities are added to each individual school) ; Detroit, 
for 85 schools; Minneapolis, for eight schools; Reno, for four; Charlotte, 
for two; Philadelphia, for four; Seattle, for ten; Green Bay, for seven 
schools. We understand that in Greeley, Colorado, as new schools are 
built, only half have kitchens, the rest are on the satellite program. 

Again, school administrators felt that the system worked well, par­
ticularly in elementary schools where the children do not need the variety 
of foods that high school students do, and that there was little or no 
difference between the satellite lunch and one which the school might 
prepare for itself. If the satellite program does work well, as it seems to 
in the communities listed above, why can it not be expanded to meet the 
needs of all the children in these cities now excluded? 

77 



9 
DONATED 
COMMODITIES 

The recurrent theme of this report has been that the National School 
Lunch Act was created to "safeguard the health and well-being of the 
Nation's children"--0f all of its children, rich or poor-and that the 
National School Lunch Program has not entirely lived up to the intent 
of its creators. 

But there is a secondary purpose to the Act, as well, which is stated 
in its Declaration of Policy: 

"It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, as a measure of 
national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's 
children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricul­
tural commodities and other foods .•. " [our italics] 

The connection between the nation's farm programs and the opera­
tion of the School Lunch Program is a natural, even an inevitable, one. 

78 

On the one hand, the Government is required to purchase surpluses and 
other foods to carry out price support programs authorized by Congress. 
And on the other hand, meals for the nation's school children present an 
opportunity for having these commodities consumed without waste. Thus, 
two desirable social goals are met by the use of donated commodities in 
the National School Lunch Program-supplying food to our school 
children while lending needed Government support to a healthy farm 
economy. Indeed, the fact that the School Lunch Program is a market for 
agricultural products has been a key factor in support from Congressmen 
from the farm states. 

The early experience with donated commodities in school lunches 
before the bill was passed in 1946 showed that the available surpluses 
and price support foods were not by themselves adequate to supplement 
the school lunch. In some cases, the supply fluctuated greatly; in other 
cases, the nature of the food made it difficult to process or unpalatable for 
children. One of the School Act's important sections (Sec. 6) authorized 
Federal purchase and donation to the states of special foods which would 
ensure the good nutritional balance of the school lunches. These special 
Sec. 6 foods tend to be high protein foods, such as meat and eggs. While 
surplus foods (Sec. 32) and price support foods (Sec. 416) are dis­
tributed as available, some in unlimited quantities, the more desirable 
Sec. 6 foods, limited in quantity, are distributed on the basis of the num­
ber of lunches served the previous year. 

Donated commodities play an extremely important part in financing 
the school lunch. Whereas the Federal cash contribution is only 4.5¢ 
toward the cost of the lunch, the food contribution ranges from 6¢ a 
lunch to about 10¢. Opinion about the usefulness, ease of handling, de­
sirability of the available food, and the administrative headaches of the 
commodity program vary. What follows is a summary of State Directors' 
experiences with and reactions to the donated commodity portion of the 
National School Lunch Program in the thirty-six states where the informa­
tion was available: 
ALABAMA: Larger portion of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods go to needier 
schools but Sec. 6 foods are shared equally. Director described the foods as 
nutritionally good. 

ARIZONA: All schools get same amount of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods. 
Nutritionally foods are "marvelous"; administrative handling is "good", but 
foods should "be available earlier, when promised." 

ARKANSAS: Schools receiving higher rate of cash reimbursement also 
receive more Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods. Sec. 6 foods distributed on the 
basis of previous participation. The food is "usually desirable" from the 
nutrition standpoint. As for handling, "There is difficulty with frozen foods. 

79 



We would like to see school districts purchase more frozen fruits and vege. 
tables when equipment and storage are available." 

CALIFORNIA: All foods distributed on a participation basis. On the desira. 
bility of the foods from the nutrition standpoint, "Money could be spent 
on other things-margarine, canned fruit, raisins, etc. If more cash, rather 
than commodities, were available, schools could adjust the price of the lunches 
and surpluses would be a boon." No administrative difficulty. 

COLORADO: State Welfare Agency bandies the distribution of surplus fOOds 
and problems are about to arise because they have asked to be relieved of 
this responsibility. Although local schools pay drayage, Welfare handles stor. 
age and this represents a $65,000 contribution from Welfare to the School 
Lunch Program. 

In answer to the question, "Does your office know in advance what 
foods are going to be available?", the comment was : "Not far in advance 
so it is bard to plan. Last year, the Government stuck its neck out and said 
it would have lots of turkeys. Dealers jacked up the price and then the 
Government refused to buy." 

Sec. 6 foods are allocated on the basis of so much per child, but Director 
may designate that needy children get double amounts, and the very needy 
may get some commodities usually only available to non-school welfare re­
cipients. 

"We sometimes would prefer cash because we believe that some items 
can be purchased locally cheaper. The Department of Agriculture is reluctant 
to buy regional surpluses if there are not enough for national use. We would 
like to keep the level of commodities the same and have more cash. 

"Colorado makes good use of prison canned goods which are a tre­
mendous asset, especially for districts which are from wholesalers. But they 
first go to state institutions; then the excess goes to the Schooi Lunch Pro­
gram." 

FLORIDA: Commodities distributed not through School Lunch Program but 
through Department of Public Welfare. Schools in needy neighborhoods are 
offered a larger share of them, but usually don't have adequate storage facili­
ties, so can't use them. Foods generally desirable. As a result of being used for 
school lunches, some nutritious foods, such as dried eggs, have had a market 
created for them. 

"We could better use money than these fods. It is all right to support 
farmers, but there is no reason for the government to underwrite such prod­
~cts as honey. For many of the Sec. 6 foods, the schools could do better buy­
mg them on the open market in Florida." 

GEORGIA: Greater quantities of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods go to needy 
s~hools. The food is "very good" nutritionally and there are no administra­
tive problems, but "it would be more desirable to have Sec. 6 funds for pur· 
chasing food locally instead of commodities." 

ILLINOIS: Needy schools get larger share of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods. 
Food~ desir~ble nutritionally and there is no administrative difficulty in the 
handling. Director would like to see the commodity program broadened. 

80 

JOWA: Needy schools get larger share of Sec. 32 and 416 foods. Foods d~ 
irable and due to "data processing, the state has been able to handle goods as 
~ast as they come in. The main difficulty is that some 'filler' commodities du-

)icate each other, are too similar and there are not enough uses for them 
ri.e., rolled wheat and rolled oats) . " 

J{ANSAS: Needy schools get larger share of surplus commodities. Foods 
"excellent" nutritionally and administrative handling reasonably good. Program 
should be kepjj as is. 

LOUISIANA: Same as Kansas. 

MAfNE: Sec. 6 commodities and those Sec. 32 commodities which are in 
short supply are apportioned on the basis of number of children in the 
schools. Needy schools are not given larger share of surplus commodities ex­
cept that they are usually smaller, and since they don't break up cas:s of com­
modities, the smaller schools (needy or affluent) tend to get a little more 
proportionately. Nutritionally, foods "in general very good." "It would make 
for easier handling if lists of what was available could be sent to local schools 
and they could order what they needed and what they bad room to store. 
More study should be given to alternate ways of supplying commodities." 

MARYLAND: "The commodity program is a marvelous program. We 
could not purchase anywhere near this amount of food if we were given the 
equivalent in dollars. In these terms, the food is worth much, much more 
and we get good protein-high foods." 

MICHIGAN: Schools receiving Sec. 11 funds receive more donated com­
modities. The nutritional quality of the food is "excellent"; ease of handling 
is "excellent." "If Sec. 6 could be cut back, the funds saved should be dis­
tributed' in the form of cash reimbursement." 

MINNESOTA: Distribution of donated commodities is based on food use, 
and needy schools do not get larger share. Quality of food is "good": "no 
problems" with administration. "Sec. 6 foods should be cut back and others 
broadened. The Federal government and state government should work out a 
system of having enough commodities to have uniform distribution each 
year." 

MISSISSIPPI: Needy schools do not receive a larger share of surplus com­
modities unless they request more of such basic items as fl.our, meal, dried 
milk and rice. Quality of food is "good"; administration presents no prob­
lems and is "very well organized"; and program should be broadened, but 
"commodity distribution is a problem because storage facilities are a problem 
in many school districts. There are no state facilities at all and this makes 
it necessary to limit the amount of frozen foods used." However, we need 
"continued provision of adequate and desirable donated foods year by year. 
There is a need for consistency in providing these foods so that they will be 
less subject to lobbying influences." 

MISSOURI: Schools reporting a high rate of free lunches get larger appro­
priations of all types of commodities. The foods themselves are "a help, but 
handling and storage, plus transportation, reduce the actual value of the dollar 

81 



spent. The commodity program should be cut back and Sec. 6 should be dis­
continued and replaced with cash reimbursement." 

MONTANA: Needy schools do not get larger share of commodities. All are 
distributed on basis of participation. Food is "all right" but Director would 
like "more proteins. They could leave out bulgur, split peas and lima beans." 

NEBRASKA: Needy schools get larger share of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416; Sec, 
6 apportioned on basis of previous participation. "With a few exceptions, i.e. 
rice, the food from the nutritional standpoint is pretty good"; "no problems~ 
in administration. "Sec. 6 should be cut back because money is cheaper than 
food to distribute. Often foods can be bought cheaper locally, e.g., ground 
beef locally is 49¢ to 50¢ a pound and the government is paying 67¢ to 
69¢ a pound. The program should use surplus foods only." 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Commodities allocated by direct distribution agency not 
a part of School Lunch Division. Nutritionally, foods generally good, and 
administration is well-handled at state level. "We would prefer to receive the 
dollar value as part of the Federal reimbursement rather than the commodi­
ties." 
NEW JERSEY: Sec. 32 and 416 commodities distributed on basis of need. 
Basis for distributing Sec. 6 foods includes the number of free and reduced 
price lunches served. Program should be "broadened." 

NEW MEXICO: "Schools receiving a higher variable rate of cash reim­
bursement are eligible for one and a half times the amount of food distributed 
to regular programs. The Commodity Division in this state, not the School 
Lunch Office, distributes commodities, so we have no comment about ad­
ministration. The desirablility of the food is 'excellent' and we would like to 
see the commodity program broadened as much as possible." 

NEW YORK: Needy schools get more Sec. 32 commodities. "If the govern­
ment is going to give so little in cash, then the state does well with commodi­
ties. We get a better overall dollar value with commodities than on the open 
market. There are some wasteful aspects; We had a surfeit of turkeys in the 
last years-they are bulky and take up all the freezer space. Beans and peas 
could be dehydrated. Also, it would be good to know more in advance what 
foods are going to be available. We suggest menus at the beginning of the year 
based on commodities we think we are going to get and then they change." 

OHIO: If needy schools request larger share of surplus foods and are able 
to use them, they get them. The foods are generally "excellent" nutritionally; 
freezer and storage space lin1itations sometimes make administration difficult. 
"Many schools would prefer increased cash reimbursement. There have been 
instances in which some commodities· could have been purchased locally at 
lower prices. Handling costs must still be added. Also, many children tend to 
dislike some donated foods, such as rice and olives." 

OKLAHOMA: Distribution of commodities handled by State Welfare Depart· 
ment, which says that the only difficulty in administration is in "isolated cases 
where there is inadequate refrigeration, but most schools use local locker 
plants for storage of frozen foods." Needy schools get more Sec. 32 foods. 
Also more Sec. 6 foods. (Colorado is the only other state which does this.) 
The foods are "excellent" because they include Sec. 6. 

82 

gEGON: "Extra allocations of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods are made to 
~ools with a large percentage of free lunches and to schools with deficient 
balances in lunch funds." The food is "excellent in quantity and quality," and 
adlllinistratively, the "program works well." Should be broadened. 

PENNSYLVANIA: Needy schools in poor neighborhoods can get a larger 
share of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 foods if they request it and have the storage 

ace. The foods are "good" with "no special problems" of administration. 
!!'More protein rich food and canned fruit and vegetables would cut costs." 

RHODE ISLAND: State Purchasing Agent responsible for distribution of 
commodities. Foods "enhance nutrition and the value of the meal" but some 
food allotments per child are higher at times when there is a. surplus of one 
or two items, such as honey or peanut butter. Some of these items should be 
cut back. 

soUTII CAROLINA: "We work out our own internal state assistance rate 
based on the number of free and reduced price lunches and allocate commodi­
ties accordingly. We make sure that if one school is not using all of a certain 
commodity, another school which ' likes it better gets it. This is an important 
way of using foods economically and keeping prices low. Administration is 
easy because packaging has improved and we are embarking on a state pro­
gram of better warehousing and better school equipment :financed 75 per cent 
with Federal non-food assistance. The program should be broadened. But al­
most as important is a better system for knowing in advance what foods are 
going to be available on a long-term basis. The Federal government has ~een 
in this commodity business for 30 years and ought to be able to say de:fimtely 
that such-and-such foods will be available to states on a continuing year-to­
year basis no matter what happens." 

SOUIH DAKOTA: Commodities are distributed on basis of participation, 
but "it is our responsibility to allocate on need basis, if necessary. We are able 
to allocate sufficient quantities of Sec. 32 and 416 commodities to take care 
of full needs for all schools." Nutritionally, Sec. 32 foods are ' 'very good." 
Administration of the program is "difficult" but would be hard to simplify. 
In general Sec. 32 commodity assistance "is very valuable. A cut back would 
be acceptable only if cash reimbursements increased." 

TENNESSEE: Commodities distributed by State Department of Agriculture, 
not School Lunch Program. "We give schools some leeway to adjust among 
themselves, so sometimes needy schools get larger share. We have never made 
a survey on the basis of need." On the quality of the food: "USDA does 
studies on the nutritional value of the food, but occasionally on surplus or sup­
port foods you get a lot of things like ripe olives you can't use." Administra­
tion "is not overly difficult, especially for a Federal program." 

"Basically, we've gotten the same amount of money for ten years for 
Sec. 6 foods but are feeding a lot more children. From our standpoint, it is 
not a free lunch program, though we try to help schools serve lunches at 
reasonable prices. Food items that are donated are never more than 20 per 
cent of all food, so you can see the help is not overwhelming." 

83 



TEXAS: Only schools receiving Sec. 11 funds received larger share of com. 
modities. Quality of food is "excellent." Administration is "no problem"; 
program should be broadened. 

UTAH: "Needy schools, like other schools, may use as many Sec. 32 and 
Sec. 416 commodities as they want since most of these are in plentiful sup. 
ply." Quality of food is "excellent" and there is "no problem" administra. 
tively. The "average per meal value in Utah of donated commodities is 7.2¢ 
and this is by far the greatest source of assistance we receive from the Federal 
government and is much more valuable than cash. 

"But the Federal support should be provided on a constant, ~t~ble basis, 
taking into account necessary and desirable increases. Commodities should 
be provided every year through a constant and assured program. Local dis­
trict budgets and management planning cannot be done adequately on a 
'feast one year and famine the next' basis. Plentiful commodities one year 
when surpluses are plaguing the government give adequate assistance at that 
time, and another year, if commodities are not plentiful in supply, then dis­
tricts and schools are denied this assistance. Then the program is set back 
and loses its effectiveness. School food service should not provide assistance 
from the government depending on whether or not commodities are available. 
The children are in the schools each and every year, and cannot be half-fed 
one year just to have them around to eat the surpluses another year." 

VERMONT: Secs. 32 and 416 foods distributed on basis of ability to use 
them; needy schools "can" get a larger share. Foods "very good" nutritionally. 
"Sec. 6 items, if made available in large quantities, would be a definite ad· 
vantage to all lunch programs. ·On handling: "It would be better for smaller 
schools if certain commodities were made available in smaller containers." 

VIRGINIA: Needy schools get larger share of commodities. Food is "good" 
administration "no problem"; program should be broadened. 

WASHINGTON: Sec. 11 schools and those having to pay higher freight 
costs get larger share of commodities. Food is "good" and there is no ad· 
ministrative problem, but it would be desirable to have "more beef instead 
of butter; we can buy oleomargarine for less" "better instructions to vendors 
would be helpful." 

WISCONSIN: Needy schools can get larger share of Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 
foods on request. Sec. 6 foods are distributed on basis of previous participa· 
tion. Sec. 6 foods are generally good; Secs. 32 and 416 foods vary. 

"The general attitude on the part of the federal government to rely on 
surplus commodities as a substantial support for the Program is not realistic. 
In some years, the contribution is very high, while in other years it is very 
low. Consequently school districts cannot establish a sound budget for financ­
ing the program since there is no way of forecasting the per meal value of 
donated commodities . . . Any surplus commodities available could be well 
utilized ... to help carry the burden of supplying lunches to children who are 
unable to pay and to augment local food purchases, but they should not be 
relied on as a main source of support for the program. By omitting Sec. 6 
purchases and providing cash support in their stead, local schools will have an 
opportunity for greater food selection locally and consequently greater free-

84 

d 
01 

in menu selection. It can help to reduce expenditures for costly refrigera· 
.
0 

0 
freezer and other food storage facilities and eliminate a great deal of 

~~trative expense and personnel at the state level." 

TbirtY-two of the thirty-seven Directors quoted above answered 
the questions about whether needy schools get a higher share of surplus, 
price support, and the more desirable Sec. 6 foods. 

In 16 of these states, needy schools automatically get a larger share 
of the Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 donated commodities. In seven more, needy 
schools get these foods if they request them and have the storage facilities 
for them. In five of them, those few schools receiving Sec. 11 funds or 
variable rates of assistance get a larger share of donated commodities. 
Jn four, needy schools receive no more donated commodities than other 
schools. In only two states-Colorado and Oklahoma-do needy schools 
receive a larger share of the more desirable Sec. 6 foods as well as the 
Sec. 32 and Sec. 416 commodities. 

Thus, we can see that, as with the cash reimbursement, practices 
among the states vary and are subject to no uniform guidelines for distri­
bution based on need. 

All the State Directors who answered felt that the commodities are 
good to excellent, even the twelve who have reservations about some of 
the surplus and price support commodities that are available. Even those 
who would prefer cash reimbursement to Sec. 6 foods do not complain 
about the nutritional content of the food. 

Seven State Directors are concerned with administrative problems 
which make menu planning and food distribution difficult-lack of suit­
able storage space or failure to get advance notice of what foods are going 
to be available. The problems of administration may be complicated by 
the fact that in some states (eight of those in which we interviewed the 
State Director) another agency is responsible for commodity distribution. 

On the question of eliminating Sec. 6 foods and letting states use 
this money to purchase food locally on the open market, twelve State 
Directors feel strongly that this would enable them to buy food more 
cheaply and budget more intelligently. Thirteen State Directors believe 
that the commodity program should be kept as it is or broadened. And 
eleven State Directors volunteered no opinion. 

Thus, we have an almost equal division of opinion between two well­
reasoned points of view, neither of which, it must be kept in mind, affects 
surplus foods or price support foods-only the more desirable, protein­
rich foods in Sec. 6. 

85 



00 
IC 
a.. -

IC 
IC 
a.. -

T 
IC a.. -

M 
IC 
a.. -

N 

l"i a.. 
00 

N' 

"' 00 
..:;; --~ 

86 

I 
I 
~ 
0 

a 
); 
'-" 

I 
I 
! 
! 

~ 
§, 

] 
Q,) 

Cl) 

] 
.... 
& 
() 

::l 

~ 

.... 
0 

j . 

But whatever the diversity of opinion on the use of surplus commodi­
ties, there is no argument that the cash value per lunch of all types of 
donated commodities-Sec. 6, Sec. 32 and Sec. 416-is headed danger­
ously downward. 

As the chart from the School Lunch Journal shows, the amount of 
donated commodities has fluctuated from year to year, lending validity 
to the complaints of the State School Lunch Directors that it is difficult 
to plan ahead. But the trend in the past three years bas been downward, 
with 1968 estimated to hit the lowest point yet. While in 1965 the value 
per lunch of the commodities was 9.3¢, in 1968 it will be estimated at 
4.6¢. When this drop of 4.7¢ is coupled with the drop of almost 5¢ in 
cash reimbursement from the Federal Government, it is easy to under­
stand why the National School Lunch Program is in serious :financial 
trouble. 

87 



10 
ESEA 
TO RESCUE 

"Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States 
to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies serving areas 
with concentrations of children from low-income families in order to 
expand and improve their educational programs by various means­
which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs 
of educationally deprived children." 

-Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10) 

ESEA was enacted to give special educational help to needy chil­
dren. Of the nearly $1 billion spent in 1966, 75 per cent went for instruc­
ti~nal activities-remedial reading, special instruction in mathematics, 
sc1en~e and social studies, speech therapy, special education for the 
handicapped. 

Twenty-eight per cent of the funds went for service activities- text-

88 

bQOks and materials, school libraries, guidance programs, transportation, 
clothing, health care, including eyeglasses and dentistry, and food ser· 
vice programs. 

The amount spent from Title I of ESEA on food service programs­
school breakfasts and lunches combined-is $20,000,000, 2.7 per cent 
of the total ESEA expenditure, and so represents a very small part of its 
total budget. 

But $20 million, compared with the National School Lunch Pro-­
gram's $141,000,000 reimbursement to the states, is a healthy 14 per 
cent addition to funds available for school lunches. Moreover, this extra 
$20 million is spent exclusively in needy schools and thus is directed 
to the areas where the greatest problems exist. 

The formula for determining state entitlements is based on the fol­
lowing factors: (a) the number of children age 5-17 from families with 
an annual income of less than $2,000; (b) the number of children age 
5-17 from families where incomes exceed $2,000 only because they get 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children; ( c) one-half the average per 
pupil expenditure in the state for the second year preceeding the year for 
which the computation was made. (Formula: (A + B) X C equals 
amount of state entitlement.) 

Most school districts using ESEA funds for programs related to 
food service put the money into lunches, some into breakfasts or snacks. 
Some have used funds for cafeterias or equipment, for labor for break­
fast programs funded under the Child Nutrition Act, or to upgrade the 
quality of school lunch programs in needy areas. 

Twenty-four school districts in our survey had ESEA programs. 
Eight of these had no food service projects among their ESEA programs. 
One had a breakfast program. One had a lunch and a breakfast program 
but it was at a child guidance center. One had a summer lunch program 
and had purchased kitchen equipment with the hope of starting an experi­
mental program in one school, but decided to spend the money on 
medical help for the children. One hopes to start a school lunch program 
at one school during this school year. 

In 12 of the communities in our study ESEA participated sub­
stantially in their lunch programs: Lee County, South Carolina; Sumter 
County, South Carolina; Little Rock, Arkansas; Sumter County, Ala­
bama; Taliaferro County, Georgia; Mount Bayou, Mississippi; Minneapo­
lis, Minnesota; Augusta, Georgia; Alburquerque, New Mexico; Donna, 
Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Norfolk, Virginia. 

89 



Here are reports about how the ESEA programs operate in SOIJle 

of these districts: 

LEE COUNfY: Of a total ESEA budget of $313,245, $74,375 is 
used for free lunches. ESEA provides about 1, 700 free lunches in U 
schools in the county. At the two schools in our survey, one served 519 
ESEA lunches which were rotated among 800 students; one served 260 
lunches rotated among 630 children. Before ESEA, the number of free 
lunches at these schools was miniscule. 

SUMTER COUNfY (SOUTII CAROLINA): The total ESEA budget 
for this county is $18,000, all of which is spent on free lunches in 13 
of the 19 schools in the county. This money provides 450 free lunches 
a day. At the schools surveyed the following practices were observed: 

At Central Elementary, classified as a slum school, ESEA pro­
vided 17 of the 34 free lunches daily. 

At Bates Junior High, a Negro slum school, ESEA provides 67 of 
the 266 free lunches served daily. 

At Savage Glover, also a Negro slum school, 40 to 50 free lunches 
are served daily. The principal thought ESEA supplied some or most of 
these but was not certain how many. 

At Lincoln, a Negro slum school, ESEA provides all of the 88 
school lunches served free daily. The principal at this school estimates 
that there are 250 additional children who do not eat. Since the ESEA 
coordinator had stated that no school child was hungry in this school dis­
trict, the interviewer asked him bow he accounted for the fact that one 
school principal said there were 250 children in need of free lunch but 
only 88 were getting it. The coordinator replied that he had no way of 
knowing this because he leaves all such matters up to the school prin­
cipals. 

LITTLE ROCK: ESEA funds provide virtually the entire free lunch 
program-1,975 free lunches daily. Approximately $80,000 of the 
$465,000 ESEA budget is spent on school lunches. The Federal Pro­
grams Director states that 4,000 school age children have been identified 
as needy in this community. There was no free lunch program, except 
on an emergency basis, before ESEA. 

SUMTER COUNfY (ALABAMA): Here, too, ESEA is almost com­
pletely responsible for the free lunch program. There are only 25 chil­
dren, attending three middle-class schools, whose free lunches are not 
provided by ESEA. In four poor rural schools, ESEA provides 2,118 

90 

tree lunches daily, all that are served. Ten other schools in the county 
classified as rural poor do not participate because of lack of facilities. 
;\gain. this is the first time Negro schools were included in the lunch 

program· 
rALJAFERRO COUNTY: The information here is not quite clear 
beCause free and reduced price lunches are not separated and because 
ESEA did not start operating here until the last four months of last 
year. It seems as though ESEA provided half the free lunches served 
daily, about 35 out of 70. But there is no director of federal programs 
here to verify this. 

MJNNEAPOLIS: ESEA provides 3,000 children with free lunch daily, 
spending $125,000 of its budget in six schools. This is the major part 
of free lunches, since the National School Lunch Program gives only 
87 children free lunches every day. 

AUGUSTA: ESEA provides almost a third of the free lunches in 
Augusta, giving 1,400 free lunches daily in 25 schools, out of a total of 
4,645 lunches given free. 

MOUND BAYOU: ESEA provides the total number of free lunches in 
the town's schools, feeding 200 children a day and putting $7,000 into 
the program. As in so many places where the school is very poor, the 
lunches are rotated among some 600 children who are eligible. 

ALBUQUERQUE: ESEA is feeding 4,595 children daily in 15 schools, 
compared with about 1,930 children who get free lunches from the Na­
tional School Lunch program. 

It is clear that in the communities cited above, the money that 
Title I of ESEA provides is a major support for free lunches for needy 
children. In some of the very poorest counties, with a predominantly 
Negro school population- Mound Bayou, Mississippi, Sumter County, 
Alabama, Lee and Sumter Counties, South Carolina- it is the whole free 
lunch program. 

The role that ESEA has played in helping a target group is espe­
cially evident in programs for the children of migrants. Two of the eight 
schools in Donna, Texas, which are funded by ESEA, are part of a 
special migrant education program. ESEA provides free lunch for 117 
migrant children for the full year in regular schools, and for 80 children 
for 131 days in the migrant schools. (Another Federal program for mi­
grants provides additional lunches.) In New Mexico, ESEA provided 
$3,385 for 11,200 meals for migrant children in 1966-67. 

91 



Colorado, which has been a leader in migrant education, was able 
to expand its program considerably when Federal funds became available 
through Title I of ESEA. Many school districts with migrant children 
have written food service programs into their ESEA proposals, and 
the State School Lunch Director, who has worked closely with the migrant 
program, proudly reports that no migrant child in these districts goes 
without lunch, which is provided free or for 5 ¢. ESEA pays the actual 
cost of the lunch when school is in session, but in the summer migrant 
programs it pays for the cooks' salaries also. 

The principals of poor schools that receive ESEA funds are unani­
mously grateful for the money which helps them cope with feeding hun­
gry children. But there are others in some communities, even high-level 
school administrators, who do not always greet ESEA programs with 
open arms. 

For their part, many ESEA Directors feel resentful that they have 
to use part of their budget for food service which they feel should be 
covered by the National School Lunch Program. Instead of spending 
their money to patch up an ongoing program, they would prefer to spend 
it in experimental programs where new educational ground waits to be 
broken. Here are some summaries of interviews with state officials who 
administer ESEA programs: 

"We do not use Title I money for school lunch programs, but for educa­
tional services. But we know the school lunch program is entirely inade­
quate. We know that many children go hungry because it is impossible 
to get them certified under the present system." 

"We do not spend any money on school lunches because of the needs 
elsewhere in our programs involving 90,000 children. But we know the 
school lunch program is absolutely not doing an adequate job. Lack 
of funds for facilities and equipment is a serious obstacle. But all pro­
grams cannot be implemented at once. A pilot breakfast program is 
being discussed. The regulations about who is eligible should be more 
flexible. A really creative dietician is needed in order for the menus to 
appeal to the children. Something is terribly wrong when participation is 
so very low." 

"No, the [school lunch] program is not adequate. Some students cannot 
even afford the small amount of money required for the lunches and 
many go to school without breakfast. There is great need for nutritional 
education and a well-managed program. Suggestions have been made 
to use more of our funds for the lunch program. However, there are no 
facilities in the elementary schools and we feel that rather than spend 
a large amount of [ESEA] money for the purpose of equipping them, 
the main thrust should be in spending funds for academic purposes." 

"Due to the rapid growth and great mobility in this community, last 
year's figures upon which this year's allocation was determined were 

92 

inadequate. We did drop one program that had been started so the 
money could be used for other programs to serve greater needs. The main 
problem here stems from lack of understanding at the community level. 
The general feedback resulting from community sentiment is a general 
opposition to all Federal aid in general. This is a very conservative com­
munity. Before the school program, lunch programs were operated com­
pletely locally, but through ESEA, meals are better, more varied and 
nutritionally balanced." 

''We would prefer to spend educational money for educational pro­
grams, and let some other agency take care of the needed food program. 
We did start a lunch program and drop it because of these other needs, 
and there wasn't enough money to do both. This made it necessary to 
cut down on the number of lunches each child received." 

"We have encountered hostility about our ESEA program in school 
lunches and about the whole school lunch program in general. It stems 
from the conviction that programs should focus primarily on the educa­
tion of children for the future rather than concentrate on a lunch pr<>­
gram for today. The two programs should not be administered jointly. 
A separate program of welfare [for school lunches] should be pro­
vided." 

"The school lunch program is doing an adequate job except that com­
modities aren't always available and therefore prices are high. Free 
lunch tickets must be absorbed by individuals who pay for the programs 
in individual lunch rooms. Some school board members are opposed 
to Federal aid in education in general. Once they understand the pro­
gram, there really isn't any hostility." 

"Many needy children are excluded from the National School Lunch 
Program in this community because of the Welfare Department guide­
lines. The National School Lunch Program should be immediately re­
vised and improved in this respect. Our ESEA office is part of the 
school system, so needless to say we have encountered no official hos­
tility to the program." 

"Well, obviously the National School Lunch Program is not doing an 
adequate job in this community. If it were, then there would be no 
need for an ESEA free lunch program in this community." 

For their part, school lunch administrators, while appreciating the 
help which ESEA money gives to the problem, are concerned with the 
problems of dual administration, lack of communication, and the fact 
that ESEA school lunch projects may be short term, not permanent. 

Since the ESEA program in many instances is administered locally 
through separate offices, Local School Lunch Directors did not know 
how many children in how many schools were receiving ESEA lunches. 
In some cases, however, the ESEA food service money is administered 
directly by the local School Lunch Director. These varying patterns of 
administration and liaison made it difficult to find out the facts in each 

93 



case. The examples given below of school lunch administrators' attitudes 
toward the school lunch program are taken from interviews with the 
State School Lunch Directors interviews to provide a more uniform and 
more knowledgeable assesment of attitudes among school lunch people: 

"The amount of money which ESEA provides for free school lunches 
will be reduced next year in this state. Many schools wrote school lunch 
proposals because they are the easiest to put together. Once they learn 
the ropes of the act, they'll ask money for other projects. 

"I do not know how many children in how many schools are fed lunch 
through ESEA programs. This is administered through the State Educa­
tion Department, not the School Lunch Division ... We are only re­
sponsible for the nutritional content of ESEA lunches. The staff respon­
sible for ESEA funds is better than the staff of the School Lunch 
Division because the Office of Education has set standards. 

"The Federal government should require that all education programs 
be turned over to the Office of Education and all school food programs 
to the U.S. Department of Agriculturer--with all its faults." 

"We have just started picking up the data on ESEA school lunches. It 
is incomplete because districts haven't reported it. All school lunch pro­
grams should have uniform standards, centralization, and administration 
and coordination should be! under one agency. At present they are not 
and there is no liaison." 

"The number of children getting free lunches through ESEA rather than 
through the National School Lunch Program is not kept as a separate 
statistic, since the School Lunch Division administers ESEA food ser­
vice money as part of the regular lunch program. But it complicates 
things to have funds coming in from so many sources. If provision is 
going to be made, it should be done through one program. Funds should 
all be channeled through the school lunch program in more generous 
fashion so all needy children could be benefited." 

"Title I funds are not dispensed through our office but through a sepa­
rate federal agency, which also dispenses OEO funds. We do not keep 
track of their operation and have no idea of what's going on there." 

"ESEA spends approximately $2,690,000 in school lunch programs, pro­
viding a total of 190,733 free lunches a year. These funds are 
primarily used in target area schools which are usually predominantly 
Negro schools. Target area schools should be eliminated. This would 
remove the problem you ask about (the denial of a free lunch to a 
Negro child when he transfers to a previously all-white school). There 
are needy children in non-target schools. The school lunch program 
should be funded sufficiently. In order to do this effectively other food 
programs should be eliminated, i.e., non-food assistance, breakfast pro­
grams and all other special food programs." (Southern State School 
Lunch Director.) 

"Our office is kept informed about how the ESEA program is financed 
and administered, as well as reviewing ESEA lunches to assure com-

94 

pliance with Type A lunch requirements. Title I programs help districts 
carry extra heavy load of free or reduced price lunches." 

"The figures on what ESEA spends in school food service programs are 
kept by another office in the State Board of Education, not by us in the 
schoo~ lunch division. 

"Let me say why I think all food service programs should be adminis­
tered by one office. Several ESEA free lunch projects were written up 
and approved in this state. Our nutritionists and county supervisors 
assisted in writing these proposals. Why were they written up? Because 
ESEA had the money and it had to be spent or returned and the pro­
posals had to be submitted by a certain deadline. The easiest proposal to 
write up is a school lunch proposal. After all, all the facilities and 
experienced personnel already exist and no thought or research has to 
go into it. 

"But after the project has been started, the ESEA people want to go into 
something else for which they see a greater need. They divert their 
attention and their money to something else, and the children who are 
supposed to be getting lunches on a continuing basis are left without 
it and the ESEA people say their money has run out when actually it is 
being used for something else." 

"Quite a few Title I programs are helping, but there is not much com­
munication." 

"Director seemed perturbed that' there was no liaison between the Fed­
erally-funded programs that included food, and the stat!>directed school 
lunch program. In fact, some of the questions he was asked about the 
ESEA programs he didn't know and hoped if I did get the answers they 
could be shared with him." [ Interviewer's comment] 

"All types of Federal [food service] aid provided under the various 
Federal programs should be coordinated and' administered through one 
federal and one state agency, under one agreement." 

Many of the officials interviewed-both ESEA administrators and 
State School Lunch Directors-were apprehensive lest their remarks 
about another government agency be taken as criticism by outsiders not 
qualified to comment. Since it is not the purpose of this report to create 
embarrassment for individual officials, we did not identify the states or 
the communities where the comment originated. 

But the comments here represent only the top of the iceberg. For 
it is obvious that underneath the complaints of lack of adequacy of the 
School Lunch Program made by ESEA directors on the one hand, and 
the complaints of lack of liaison made by School Lunch Directors on the 
other, lies a lack of understanding on both sides of the others' problems. 

Many ESEA officials seem to have no awareness of the problems 
with which School Lunch Directors must grapple-the lack of state and 
local support; the lack of adequate financing; the lack of guidelines. 

95 



Since their lunch and breakfast programs are fully funded, they are im­
patient with the daily compromises which state and local school officials 
must make because of lack of money. And since their programs are 
directed solely toward needy childreill, they have not taken the trouble 
to analyze the School Lunch Program in its proper perspective, as a 
program which must deal with all children, not only the needy. 

For their part, many School Lunch Directors are resentful because 
they tend to forget that ESEA is dealing with a whole range of programs, 
only a small part of which concerns school food service. They see ESEA 
as so opulently funded that it can initiate programs which are prohibitive 
for them. They resent the lack of continuity of ESEA lunch programs, 
not aware that ESEA directors are having to respond to pressures out­
side their own districts. The lack of liaison is a real one, but it is a two 
way street, both sides playing a part in creating that impasse. And finally, 
some School Lunch Directors, because of the foregoing, have a tendency 
to reject out of hand the new approaches and new standards for feeding 
needy children that some ESEA directors have proposed simply because 
they originate from another agency with whom the communication has not 
been good. 

These hostilities need to be resolved and some of our recommenda­
tions will propose methods of dealing with them. 

We did not survey food service in Headstart projects for two rea­
sons: a) Local and State School Lunch Directors had little information 
about them; and b) Headstart's funding and guidelines are so different that 
no proper comparison with regular school lunch programs is possible. 

There are also funds provided under the well-known Johnson­
O'Malley Act for American Indian children in public schools who meet 
certain criteria: they must be at least one-quarter Indian; their families 
must live on Indian-owned, tax-free land; their parents may not be in 
Federal employment. 

State agencies, usually boards of education, contract with the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) to give needy Indian children supplemental aid 
such as books, funds for athletic fees, physical education equipment, and 
meals. School districts submit claims to the responsible state agency and 
are reimbursed at the prevailing cost of the item or service, e.g., BIA 
will pay the full fee for a school lunch. 

We do not have national figures on funds expended under this pro­
gram and we visited only one state office where information was available 
on services for Indian children in public schools. The Division of Indian 

96 

:Education of the New Mexico State Department of Public Instruction 
keeps full records and publishes an excellent report. In_ 1967 about 8,850 
Indian students in New Mexico public schools qualified for Johnson­
O'Malley assistance. Out of an expenditure of $1,338,248 that year, 
food service reimbursements totaled $537,171. 

we received very little information at the local level about Johnson­
O'M alley funded meals, probably because they are not considered to be 
tree lunches and because local school lunch budgets do not absorb the 
cost of feeding this group of needy children. 

It is probable also that these funds which provide meals for Ameri­
can Indian children present the same problems as the other Federally­
funded lunch programs for special target groups. They attack the pr~bl~m 
of feeding needy children in a piecemeal way. In one s_outhwes~ disO:ct 
that we heard about, there are a large number of Amencan Indian chil­
dren who get their lunches through Johnson-O'Malley funds, but the poor 
Mexican-American children are excluded because the lunches cost 45¢ 
and few are given free. 

Once again we see the need for a comprehensive school lunch pro­
gram for all needy children. 

97 



11 
BREAKFAST 
AT SCHOOL 

In Tipton County, Tennessee, where the per capita income is $1,028 
a year, there is an elementary school where the principal keeps a supply 
of aspirin on hand for students with morning headaches.• Physical 
examinations of first-graders recently revealed that 37 per cent were 
anemic, 27 per cent had dental problems attributable in part to malnutri­
tion, and fewer than 25 per cent of the children ate breakfast. Last 
year the school launched a pilot breakfast program. After six weeks, 
teachers reported that attendance had improved, that pupils were more 
willing to study, alert and attentive and had fewer colds. The principal 
had fewer requests for aspirin. And a little fourth-grade girl said, "I won't 
be hungry anymore." 

Funds for the Tipton program came from Title III of the Child 
Nutrition Act of 1966 which authorized the establishment of pilot 

• The report of this school comes from the School Lunch Journal, June, 1967.. 

98 

breakfast programs in the state to feed needy school children and/ or 
those children who traveled long distances to school. The program was 
to run for two years and to be administered by the same agencies as 
were handling the National School Lunch Program. Congress authorized 
$7,500,000 for the first year which would include an initial reimburse­
ment to each state of $50,000, plus an additional amount to each state 
based on school age population and the same assistance need rate as in 
the National School Lunch Prgram. 

However, as with the School Lunch Program in general, and with 
Sec. 11 assistance in particular, Congress failed to appropriate all the 
money that was authorized, the final 1966-67 appropriation being $2 
roillion. Furthermore, the appropriation was made so late in the year 
that most states were able to run the program only for about four months 
- some less-and less than half of the money was used. The chart on the 
next page shows how much was appropriated, bow much used in how 
many schools, and what the average price of the breakfast was. 

With so new a program undertaken on so small a scale, it is not 
possible to tell yet how well it is succeeding. School administrators 
seemed a little bit reluctant to commit themselves in a large way to the 
program because at the time of the interviews, they were not certain 
whether the program would be funded for the coming year and whether 
it would be renewed and/ or expanded beyond the two-year experimental 
stage. 

For most states, the breakfast program has certain inherent ad­
vantages: 

1. The Federal Government's reimbursement is up to 15¢ a 
breakfast. 

2. The nutritional requirements for the breakfast can, unlike the 
school lunch, be met largely out of surplus foods--cereals, dried eggs, 
juice, etc.-in plentiful and continuing supply. These two factors make 
it possible for schools to serve breakfasts to needy children either free or 
for a very nominal price as the chart shows. 

State and local School Lunch Directors were very enthusiastic about 
the possibilities of the program. The majority of them agreed with the 
South Carolina Director who said: 

"In all of the schools where we have breakfast programs, school 
principals report that they cause an increase in attendance, reduce disci­
plinary problems, make the children more alert and help create better 
study habits. But we must make certain that a child who gets a free 

99 



CiilLD NUTRITION ACT (BREAKFAST PROGRAM) c•> breakfast is not deprived of his free lunch. It shouldn't be an either/ or 
proposition, and the lunch program must not suffer.* 

AMOUNT AMOUNT NO. OF ~ICE rik Although no one disputed the value of breakfasts for needy children, SCHOOLS AVERAGE SrATil APPROPRIATED SPENT 
the fact that only half the money was used suggests that the program is 

$36,871 $14,642 not given 10¢ 50% far from being popular. In addition to the funds being late, which made 
Alabama 

planning difficult, other reasons for resistance during the first year were Arizona 36,205 14,000 21 free 100% 

Arkansas 11,691 not given 9 15¢ 85% ( 1) cost (although the reimbursement rate is high, labor is not covered) ; 

California 66,162 not given 3 10¢ none (2) requirements for record keeping; ( 3) disruptions to morning sched-
Colorado 34,958 5,298 5 5¢ or less none ules; ( 4) community feelings that breakfast is a family responsibility. 
Florida 36,990 7,070 8 8¢ 56% 

The Kansas State Director, after stating that 60% of the children in 
Georgia none none 

the state do not get good breakfasts, reported that most of the $37,000 Illinois 30,000 30,000 not given not given not given 
allotted to the state was not used. Other directors commented: Iowa 9,000 3,194 not given not given not given 

Kansas 37,000 2,800 4 10¢ 30% 
MISSOURI: "(So little of the money was used] because children and 

Louisiana 27,807 8,572 9 5¢ 95% 
families apparently do not approve or are not interested. Excessively 

Maine 7,000 721 3 10¢ 82% 
detailed reports are required, plus supervision, and no allowance is made 

Massachusetts not given 2,459 10 15¢ 53% 
for labor." 

Michigan 34,000 17,000 17 8¢ none 

Minnesota 20,435 20,435 8 11¢ 50% UTAH: "We discontinued the program this year because an audit showed 
Mississippi 37,800 25,800 8 10¢ almost 100% 

the Government reimbursed one-third the cost, the children paid one-
Missouri 37,807 2,315 4 20¢ 95% 

third and the district had to make up the other one-third from school 
Nebraska none none 

lunch funds. We are opposed to developing new programs from funds New Hampshire 37,807 2,502 2 10¢ none 
collected and budgeted for the National School Lunch Program. [In his New Jersey 32,773 9,320 4 13¢ 98% 

New Mexico 7,807 4,247 3 5¢ none general comments about the National School Lunch Program, this Director 

New York 37,000 37,000 30 20¢ 99% spoke eloquently about the inadequate financing of the School Lunch 
North Carolina 37,807 37,807 207 10¢ not given Program as a whole.] 
Ohio 33,874 7,311 12 11.5¢ 85% 

WEST VIRGINIA: "We started with 51 programs, but now have only Oklahoma 37,807 1,475 5 not given not given 
43 because the children didn't take advantage of the program." Oregon 37,807 529 2 10¢ 17% 

Pennsylvania 33,033 3,125 4 10¢ none ARIZONA: "School administrators believe it upsets routine. Everyone 
Rhode Island not given not given 2 10¢ 80% 

had to start one hour earlier, even if they were not in the breakfast 
South Carolina 37,384 12,746 6 10¢ most 

program." 
South Dakota not given not given 2 (?) 10¢ 73% 

Tennessee 33,033 11,284 7 10¢ most As with the regular National School Lunch Program, the breakfast 
Texas 36,257 12,098 16 15¢ none program's regulations do not spell out specific guidelines beyond those 
Utah 36,000 300 1 15¢ majority contained in the act: 
Vermont 37,807 545 4 10¢ not given 

Virginia 37,146 24,720 32 5¢ 60% "In selecting schools the State Educational Agency shall, to the 
Washington 36,675 522 2 free Cb> 100% extent practicable, give first consideration to those schools drawing at-
West Virginia not given not given 43 15¢ most 

• South Carolina is unique in that in addition to the six pilot breakfast programs, Wisconsin 30,321 10,471 3 5¢ not given 
it has long had 30 additional breakfast programs which are completely private 
and run as welfare enterprises by textile companies in company towns. This is 

(a) Source of Information: Interviews with State School Lunch Directors evidently an old tradition in South Carolina going back many years. These pro-
(b) Next year the price will be 10¢. grams are completely free and supported solely by the companies. 

100 101 



tendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist, and to 
those schools to which a substantial proportion of the children enrolled 
must travel long distances daily." 

Some State School Directors did indeed attempt to follow this sug­
gestion insofar as possible, considering that as a pilot program, it could 
not cover a great many schools. They either selected poor rural schools 
on long bus routes, or where bus travel was not a factor, they used the 
ESEA guidelines or other valid criteria of need to select the schools. But 
some State Directors had to include other elements not connected with 
need or travel. In answer to the question, "How were the schools for 
the pilot program selected?", we noted the following answers: 

ARIZONA: "Those who chose to participate." 

COLORADO: "Need, but also those with clerical help available to 
handle administrative responsibilities. One needy school could not par­
ticipate because it did not have clerical help." 

MAINE: "Any school that wants it. Had to turn money back last year." 

MINNESOTA: "First come, first served." 

NEW JERSEY: "All schools were alerted to program. State Director 
visited those schools interested and then selected on the basis of need." 

OREGON: "All schools were notified of the program. Last year only 
one superintendent felt there was enough need to establish a program 
in the face of taxpayers who are very critical of all welfare programs 
in the school." 

WASHINGTON: "They requested it." 

PENNSYLVANIA: "The state bas not been able to fulfill the purpose 
of the Breakfast Program. Where there was the greatest need, no oppor­
tunity was given to establish it This is partly because in the cities only 
union help could be used for so many hours and volunteers were not per­
mitted to serve." 

In addition, six State Directors said that the schools were selected 
on the basis of need plus the interest of the principals and/or school 
districts. The balance of the states made the selections on the basis of 
need and the number of children who bad to travel long distances. 

It is perfectly understandable that in a small pilot program the sug­
gested criteria of the act could not always be followed. But if the pro­
gram were to be enlarged and substantially funded, the present vague 
terminology would not suffice. The history of the National School Lunch 

102 

Program as a whole proves the desirability of defined standards in the 
Breakfast Program as well. 

In addition to the Breakfast Programs funded by the Child Nutri­
tion Act, ESEA conducts breakfast programs in the following states sur­
veyed: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New 
Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. In 
West Virginia, ESEA also supplies the labor for the Child Nutrition Act 
breakfast program. And although ESEA has no breakfast programs in 
Washington, it supplies the labor for their Child Nutrition Act breakfast 
programs. 

SOME NOTES ABOUT THE SPECIAL MlLK PROGRAM 

We included nine questions about the special milk program in our 
questionnaire to State School Lunch Directors and seven questions to 
local School Lunch Directors. In one respect, the answers were so uni­
formly affirmative that it seems clear that the milk program is adequately 
funded and is working well: 

1. The great majority of schools in the communities we surveyed 
are included in the special milk program. 

2. The Federal Government reimburses more than half the cost 
of the first pint of milk served with lunch and slightly more on every 
half-pint served after that. This means that out of what the children 
pay on the balance, plus special reimbursement based on the number 
of half-pints served free, there is enough money to serve milk free to 
needy children-a far higher percentage than receive a free lunch. 

From these two factors alone, it is easy to see that the milk pro­
gram is working well. 

On the other hand, record-keeping for the milk program is such 
that some states do not separate bow much milk is served at the regular 
reduced price and how much is served free to bow many children. And 
while some of the communities studied have this information, others 
do not. 

For these two reasons, we decided not to attempt a state by state 
or community by community analysis of the special milk program. In 
general, the milk program seems to be a success and we have no recom­
mendations to make about its operation. We are concerned, however, 
about schools which have neither the milk nor the lunch programs. 

103 



12 
ADMINISTRATION OF THE 
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 

The National School Lunch Act does not set minimum standards 
for school lunch personnel, and the USDA Regulations interpreting the 
Act do not deal at all with qualifications for school lunch administrators, 
formal training for supervisors, or in-service training for dieticians, cooks 
and helpers. 

All that the Regulations require is that the state educational agency 
review at least one-third of the participating schools every year to assist 
the local manager in improving her operation, to make sure they are 
meeting nutritional standards and are providing free or reduced price 
lunches to needy children, and to determine the adequacy and accuracy of 
their records. 

This does not mean, however, that every school must be visited once 
every three years. The Regulations permit the use of "performance sur­
veys"-written reports to the state educational agency-by up to one-

104 

half of the schools. "The use of performance surveys in lieu of admin­
istrative reviews to meet more than one-half of this requirement shall be 
only on the basis of consultation with and approval of the USDA." [our 
italics] 

While administrative reviews may not be made by school personnel 
directly involved with the lunch program under review, there is no re­
quirement that they be made by qualified personnel in the State School 
Lunch Director's office. They can be made by county personnel or by 
people who may have no training in dietetics, sanitation, or the economics 
of the School Lunch Program. 

While the National School Lunch Program spells out quite specifi­
cally what the nutritional content of the lunch may be, it provides no 
guidance about the conditions under which the lunch is to be served. 
This depends solely upon local and state regulations concerning cleanli­
ness, safety, health, and adequate space. 

Predictably, this laissez-faire attitude results in the broadest possible 
spectrum of quality of personnel, training programs, and administrative 
review. In the last analysis, it is also responsible for the widest possible 
range of performance in preparing the food for the children to eat. A 
well-trained cook can take the ingredients of the Type A lunch and 
make a tasty, attractive meal with a minimum of waste. A poorly trained 
cook, working in inadequate space with poor equipment, can take the same 
food and make an unappetizing mess out of it. 

The American School Food Service Association is deeply concerned 
about professional standards and upgrading. Almost every issue of its 
School Lunch Journal has articles, reports of convention discussions, or 
position statements on professional upgrading, in-service training, the 
development of management skills. Their leadership recognizes that the 
job of making school lunches available to all school children requires 
competence in administration, business management and community rela­
tions, as well as nutrition. 

A look at the requirements for personnel, training and review reveals 
the extent of the differences in practices among the states. 

ALABAMA: Provides no state money for administration of State School 
Lunch Director's office. Does not require professional certification or degrees 
for those responsible for school lunch menus. One state-wide meeting each 
year to review menus and provide in-service training. Local supervisors 
conduct administrative reviews. 

ARIZONA: Degrees for school lunch personnel not required: "They are 
usually housewives." Three two-week programs in the universities and one at 

105 



a junior college available to school lunch personnel. One state-wide meeting 
of personnel held each year. Three staff profresionals at the state level do the 
administrative review. 

ARKANSAS: "We do not require professional certification, but are working 
toward it. We do not have enough people to man jobs, therefore we must 
work with some who are not certified." Course at the University of Arkansas 
available for managers. State-wide conference held each year for supervisors. 
Menu review and in-training service provided at regularly scheduled meetings 
four times a year. 

CALIFORNIA: No professional certification. State staff includes only one 
trained nutritionist. Training provided at junior colleges all over the state, al­
through no state-wide or regional meetings held. Field representatives do ad­
ministrative reviews. 

COLORADO: Supervisors and directors are professionals, but less than half 
of those responsible for school lunch menus have professional certification 
or college degrees. Many in-service programs throughout the state where 
inexperienced school lunch personnel can become vocationally certified and 
trained in quantity food preparation and baking. There is an annual state­
wide meeting and area meetings for "multiple unit supervisors" who have 
three or more schools under their jurisdiction. These supervisors conduct 
administrative reviews in their own units because the state office has only two 
professionals. Reports from trouble spots are watched and reviewed more 
often. 

FLORIDA: All county supervisors must have professional certification. 
State-wide meetings of county school lunch supervisors are held twice a year, 
regional meetings of school lunch supervisors are held once a year, and 
county meetings are held monthly. "Administrative reviews are conducted 
by a state staff person with a degree in nutrition visiting the school for a 
whole day. In 1966-67, the state staff conducted administrative reviews in 56 
of the 1,800 schools." 

GEORGIA: Professional certification is available for food service directors 
but not mandatory, since the state cannot finance the program. No in-service 
training or menu review is provided at regularly scheduled regional or state­
wide meetings but there is a comprehensive program of training for school 
food service personnel. Eight state staff and seventy locally employed pro­
fessionals conduct administrative reviews. 

ILLINOIS: No professional certification required. One state-wide meeting of 
personnel held annually. Review conducted by field supervisor. 

IOWA: Certification not required, but it is hoped that within six years. ~ne 
person in each kitchen will have at least completed the advanced trammg 
course at the University of Iowa. Local school districts and groups such as 
PTA usually pay cost of sending school lunch personnel to attend the training 
course at the University of Iowa. State Director comments: "Better trained 
personnel are needed as cooks and cafeteria workers. Higher salaries would 
help a great deal in attracting such people. Currently, salaries average $42.94 
a week." There is one state-wide and one regional meeting a year, and in 
some areas, there are multi-county meetings monthly or bi-monthly. Adminis-

106 

trative review is conducted usually by regional supervisors, but occasionally 
by a state staff person. Reviews include not only visits to schools, but also 
discussions with welfare and other community sources. 

KANSAS: Professional certification not required, but "encouraged" and can 
be obtained at a series of courses provided throughout ·the state and also 
through college courses in the summer. Reviews are conducted by regional 
personnel. 
LOUISIANA: Professional certification is required for all supervisory per­
sonnel. However, some parishes as yet do not have the professional per­
sonnel. Certification is available at state-sponsored and college sponsored 
workshops and through local in-service training by supervisors, who conduct 
pre-job and on-the-job training. Administrative reviews are conducted by 
state or parish professionals or visits to schools. 

MAINE: No professional certification required. "Workers want and need 
training . .. They are mostly housewives ... We can't meet their requests 
for training because of lack of funds and ... trained instructors .•. We 
have set up training programs and then the Federal money for them has been 
withdrawn ... We have held some courses with Manpower Training and 
Adult Education funds . .. 1We try to give training through adult education 
programs and are even planning a TV program . . . There is a state-wide 
meeting once a year. We used to hold a day training session in each county at 
the time of the teachers' conventions, but the conventions are phasing out, 
so we need a new plan . . . The visits required by Federal law [for admin­
istrative reviews] are used primarily for education, not inspection, and are 
conducted by a state person. 
MARYLAND: "All our district supervisors have degrees. However, we do not 
have district supervisors for every area. In these smaller population centers, 
someone doing another job-such as being in charge of school transportation 
-may ac~ as a supervisor. In these places, lunchroom managers attend our 
regularly held state-wide and district meetings and receive training in menu 
preparation." 
MASSACHUSETTS: "Certification for school food service personnel will be 
required within a year." In-service training and menu review provided 
through two state-wide and four regional meetings a year, programs con­
ducted by executive chief of the school kitchen staff, monthly newsletters. 
Administrative reviews conducted by state staff nutritionists. 
MICHIGAN: Professional certification not required. "We follow the general 
procedures outlined by the USDA. We don't have sufficient staff to do more. 
Our State Food Service Supervisors meet once a year and regional meetings 
are held at varying times--once a month to twice a year . . . 'Intermediate 
personnel' conduct the administrative review." 
MINNESOTA: No professional certification required. In-service training can 
be obtained by participation in one of four six-week summer courses given 
at different locations in the state. Also three Saturday workshops during the 
year and yearly state-wide and regional meetings. State staff members able to 
visit only one-tenth of schools each year for administrative reviews. 
MISSISSIPPI: Managers can become certified by attending a one-week sum­
mer workshop. Supervisors required to attend two summers in succession. 

107 



Administrative reviews conducted by area staff and by performance surveys. 
State Director suggests as a program improvement: "Reduce amount of sur­
veys to be completed." 

MISSOURI: No professional classification required. Yearly state-wide and 
regional meetings for personnel. The University provides a "short course" 
and the state colleges have a continuous program of workshops. State staff 
professional does administrative review of each school every three years. 

MONTANA: No professional certification is necessary: "most school dis­
tricts cannot even afford to hire a school lunch supervisor." There are train­
ing workshops every summer and state-wide and regional_ ~eetings once a 
year. Administrative reviews sometimes conducted by VISlts from school 
superintendents. 

NEBRASKA: Professional certification not required. No state-wide meetings, 
each summer for all food service personnel; lunch room managers attend 
state university workshop for two weeks during three summers. Regions hold 
meetings twice a year. Menus supervised locally through a visitation program 
by School Lunch Director and two nutritionists. Administrative reviews 
handled by state staff. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Certification not required. In-service training available 
in biennial workshops and state-wide meetings or in regional meetings, "as 
the need arises." Menus reviewed by consultants, reminders in newsletters, 
workshops, short courses. There is also "extensive cooperation with the New 
Hampshire School Food Service Association and their annual and regional 
meetings." Administrative reviews conducted by state staff. 

NEW JERSEY: Ten of the school lunch personnel responsible for menus 
have Master's degrees; 37 have Bachelor's; 50 have professional training; 
and 16 have had two years of college. The majority have had no higher 
education. There are two small summer workshops for supervisors and five 
for managers; workshops on a county level every three years; yearly regional 
meetings; and a yearly two-day state-wide meeting. These are sponsored by 
the State Professional Association on whose board two of the state school 
lunch personnel serve. Menu suggestions also made through state division's 
newsletter. Administrative review forms filled out by local administrators. 
Two state professionals review the form, make recommendations and report 
to the local school board. 

NEW MEXICO: No professional certification required. There are summer 
workshops, annual state-wide meetings and area meetings for training. Local 
school lunch "consultants" do administrative reviews. 

NEW YORK: No certification requirements, but the state school lunch 
office is trying to get the State Department of Education to at least require that 
new managers and directors attend a state-wide meeting. No formal, manda­
tory in-service programs, but the state office encourages local training pro­
grams and thinks they, too, should be required. Menus are supervised through 
supervisory visits to schools, area-wide managers' meetings, workshops of the 
School Food Service Association and newsletters issued by the state office. 
Administrative reviews conducted approximately every three years by a mem­
ber of the state staff. 

108 

NORTH CAROLINA: Questions on training, meetings, certification left un­
answered. Question on how menus meet Federal nutritional requirements: 
"Electronic data processing system." 

OHIO: All professional personnel in the program are in the state office. In­
service training provided through city and county one-day conferences, 
three-day annual summer conferences, and six-day workshops at the state 
universities. Administrative reviews conducted by state office consultants who 
evaluate 25 per cent of programs annually. 

OKLAHOMA: No professional certification required. No state-wide meetings, 
but yearly regional meetings. Also local workshops ranging from three days 
to two weeks. 

OREGON: Professional certification not required. No state-wide meetings, 
but regional in-service meetings once a year provide in-service training. Three 
courses prepared by State School Lunch Director's office are available for 
vocation education classes. Performance surveys and administrative reviews 
made of programs "if possible." 

PENNSYLVANIA: Certification not mandatory, but school managers can 
be certified through attendance at training courses and six week institute each 
summer at State university. Regional home economics supervisors have meet­
ings with each school food service staff about once a month. Administrative 
reviews handled by state office personnel, regional home economics super­
visors or local school food service managers. 

RHODE ISLAND: Two top state school lunch persons must have college 
degree; no certification required for rest of professionals. Training provided 
by state supervisors at one-day meeting. State-wide meetings scheduled only 
"as need arises" and no regional meetings. 

SOUTH CAROLINA: On certification: "A new state law allows supervisory 
personnel to be hired at the local level. No effect so far since all are the 
same people and all had degrees. It could have a bad effect in the future. But 
the law may be changed back." There is a one week state-wide seminar 
[for training] and one three-day seminar during the year. Regional meetings 
are held five or six times during the year in five centers in the state. Local 
county meetings of all food service personnel are held every month. "We 
have constant review of menus, personal visits and area meetings. I regard 
review and training as of supreme importance in this program." 

SOUTH DAKOTA: "We have started college courses leading to certification 
but not a degree." State-wide meetings are held once a year and regional 
meetings, three times a year. Administrative reviews are made by School 
Lunch Division personnel and a trained nutritionist, who also does menu 
evaluations. 

TENNESSEE: Degrees required for supervisors in state office. A new state 
regulation requires college degrees in home ecomonics for newly employed 
supervisors of the few local systems operated from the central office but 
makes no requirement for cafeteria managers even though they plan menus. 
There are summer programs for managers and supervisors with special 
demonstrations and one or two day meetings in various localities during the 

109 



year. ''The adminiStrattve review ls com1ucted haphazardly. Each year 
USDA sends in a team of an administrative officer and a home econoffiis~ 
for one week. They visit with us, see our bosses and we all visit schools 
together. Otherwise, we don't do a real review-just check menus." 

TEXAS: No professional certification required. Seven one-week workshops 
held each summer. No state-wide or regional meetings. Six state supervisors 
visit schools to conduct administrative review. 

UTAH: Certification only "recommended" for district supervisors. State-wide 
meetings held three times a year; regional meetings, twice a year. Training 
available through colleges and local districts. Administrative review is con­
ducted in each school at least every three years. Evaluate schools with little 
professional or experienced help every year. 

VERMONT: No certification required. Training given at annual state-wide 
meeting, semi-annual regional meetings and workshops. State staff and regional 
supervisors conduct review. 

VIRGINIA: No certification necessary. State-wide meetings held yearly and 
regional meetings, "as necessary." Training provided in seven area con­
ferences. Administrative review conducted by regional supervisors. Schools 
in areas without supervisors are visited at least every two years. 

WASHINGTON: No certification required. State-wide meetings held once 
a year; regional meetings, "upon request." Workshops and classes in vocational 
education are also provided. Administrative review is accomplished by per­
formance survey where district has a professional supervisor. Where not, 
schools are visited by personnel from the Home and Family Life Education 
Department and other regional supervisors. 

WEST VIRGINIA: No certification required. Training is provided in one 
or two day programs once a year by the Department of Education, by 
adult education courses, and by one teacher who travels around the state. 
The administrative review is conducted by State Program specialists-four 
in the field and the counties which have supervisors. 

WISCONSIN: No certification required, but we are working toward a cer­
tification program. Training is provided through district area and state-wide 
workshops and currently through a program of training by the University 
Extension Service. State-wide meetings are held once a year and regional 
meetings as "often as needed and the availability of personnel dictates." 
Administrative review conducted by School Lunch Division personnel. 

As previously noted, two of the chief reasons for the administrative 
review are: (a) to check the nutritional content of the school lunch, and 
(b) to ensure that schools are providing free or reduced price lunches to 
needy children. We asked State Directors if schools were put on probation 
or dropped if they failed to meet these requirements. The answers pro­
vide a sharp contrast among the procedures followed. 

Of the 39 State Directors surveyed, more than two-thirds had de­
veloped procedures for dealing with substandard nutritional content of 

110 

the food. These included recommendations for improvement with a fol­
low-up to see that recommendations had been put into e~ect; e~tra 
visits by supervisors; careful checking of menus over a sustamed penod 
after violations were found; official letters of warning; probation; and, 
in a few instances, where all else had failed, dropping the school from 
the program and re-admitting it only when the difficulties had been 
corrected. 

As far as not providing sufficient free or reduced price lunches is 
concerned, only five states-California, New York, Ohio, South Carolina 
and Maine-had ever dealt with this violation of the Regulations, and 
the instances were very few, e.g., Maine, where schools had been put on 
probation only "three or four times in twenty years." 

The reasons for the difference in approach can be easily adduced 
from the previous chapters : 

1. Nutritional standards set by the USDA are clear and specific. 
Supervisors, even untrained ones, should not have much trouble telling 
when the lunch does not meet such clearly defined standards. But since 
no standards have been set to define need, a supervisor--especially one 
who is untrained-bas no way of knowing whether the performance in 
this matter is adequate. 

2. "We don't do this," said one State Director about putting 
schools on probation, "because we know they are trying the best they 
can." If there is not enough money available for free lunches, this is not 
the fault of the individual school principal, and under the present system, 
it makes little sense to exhort, recommend or penalize. 

Thus, the administrative review, as far as feeding needy children is 
concerned, has little meaning. 

Another important area in the administration of the program is the 
keeping of records, and this, too, is supposed to be one of the items 
checked in the administrative review. The Federal Government only asks 
for essential information, although some State School Lunch Directors 
and Local Directors complained about the burden of paper work. Many 
school principals, because they have so many administrative chores in 
the area of education, spoke up strongly about this burden, which, in 
tum, has been placed on them. 

In any case, we encountered the broadest variations in the accuracy 
and depth of statistical information available-from State Director to 
State Director, among Local Directors, and most particularly among indi­
vidual school principals. Many school principals, who gave every evidence 

111 



of wanting to cooperate in our study, were unable to tell us how many 
children participated in the school lunch program or how many lunches 
were served free or at a reduced price to needy children. Local School 
Lunch Directors sometimes could not give us this information in their 
districts, and often did not have any facts and figures about finances, i.e., 
how much money came from Federal, state or local sources and how 
much from the children themselves. And, as previously noted, many 
State Directors were not kept informed about other Federal programs, 
such as ESEA, which operate in the school lunch field in their states. 

However, it must be said that many State Directors and local of­
ficials, as well, were extremely knowledgeable about their own operations 
and had devised forms and procedures to assist them in gaining informa­
tion and in keeping school principals well-informed, too. It would be a 
healthly development if these more successful directors could contribute 
the techniques they use to their colleagues and if a standardized system 
of record-keeping could be developed on a more sophisticated level than 
the Federal Government demands. 

Although part of the story of training personnel to run school lunch 
programs can be recounted in the statements concerning available courses 
and requirements for certification, a recital of the answers to interviewers' 
questions does not tell the whole story. For instance, a state university 
can provide a splendid course on lunch room management, but if the 
lunch room manager is neither required to attend nor given an incentive 
to do so, such as upgrading in the job or increased pay, the course will 
have little impact. Similarly, state or regional meetings which do not 
foster discussions of everyday problems common to lunch room personnel 
will leave them little wiser than before they attended. 

How effective the various programs are depends in large part upon 
the leadership provided by the State School Lunch Director. Our reports 
reflect a wide range of competence, enthusiasm and leadership among 
the State Directors whom we interviewed. In some states, the regular turn­
over in the State Director's job seems to suggest either that the position 
has no status or that it is a political appointment. In others, State Direc­
tors were able to give our interviews so little information about basic 
requirements of the National School Lunch Act and about developments 
in their own states that we were forced to conclude they were less than 
totally involved in their jobs. 

In at least ten states, the interviewers found the State Director very 
knowledgeable and concerned, and made a special point of recording this. 
And in three states-Florida, Colorado and South Carolina-the State 

112 

Directors had so much extra to offer in the way of special information, 
background history, statistics, and thoughtful insights into the way the 
School Lunch Program operates that we have gratefully turned to their 
comments over and over again in preparing this report. 

In addition to formal training sessions, some State School Lunch 
Divisions prepare regular newsletters or bulletins for their own personnel 
and for school lunch managers. These publications contain suggested 
menus, tips for preparing food economically and attractively, hints on 
good purchasing procedures and how best to use existing equipment, 
articles on increasing participation in the program. These are valuable 
aids and it is too bad that not all state offices can afford to publish them. 
Among the publications we reviewed that seemed very good are those 
from New York, Utah, California, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arizo~a, 
New Mexico and Massachusetts. And it is no accident that the bulletins 
published by Florida, Colorado and South Carolina seemed to us par­

ticularly outstanding. 

113 



13 
LOS ANGELES: 
OUT OF IT 

Two communities, on opposite coasts and very different in size and 
history, have come to our attention as drop-outs from the National 
School Lunch Program. Belfast, Maine (pop. 6200) , 28 per cent of 
whose families are below the welfare standard, and Los Angeles (pop. 
2,695,000) have left the program. Both claim the financial crisis as the 
chief reason. 

Here is the Los Angeles story. 

Los Angeles dropped out of the School Lunch Program in 1955 
when the Federal cash subsidy fell to 4.3¢ per meal. At that time, accord­
ing to a report issued by the Los Angeles Auxiliary Service Committee 
'~it b:came financially impractical for the District to maintain participa~ 
tion. m the program. [The subsidy] has now dropped to 4¢ [In Cali­
forrua] and would further drop to 3.6¢ during the first year of Los 
Angeles' re-joining the program. 

114 

"In order for Los Angeles to participate, there cannot be a continu­
ing discrepancy between the actual cash subsidy and the maximum allow­
ance. If the present allowable maximum of 9¢ were actually funded, it 
would allow Los Angeles to participate at the elementary level without 
increasing the price of the meal." 

The report goes on to list other reasons for non-participation as 
follows: 

1. Nutritional Standards 
"The Los Angeles Schools' lunch program at the elementary level 

is designed to meet one-third of the daily diet requirements of children 
in grades one through six (all older children are on an a la carte basis) . 
The nutritional standards are less than in the National School Lunch 
Program and, therefore, the cost to produce the lunch is less. The Na­
tional School Lunch Program would also require additional manager 
time for reports." 

2. Additional Cost 
Los Angeles estimates that participation in the National School 

Lunch Program would raise the cost per meal to 41 ¢ as against the 
present net cost of 35¢. Against this, the report states, the addition of 
Sec. 6 commodities to the present surplus commodities would bring an 
increased reimbursement of 2.4¢ per meal. The cash reimbursement 
would also be increased by a Federal reimbursement of 3.6¢ per meal 
as against the present milk subsidy of 3¢ for the milk included in the 
meal, a net gain of six-tenths of a cent. Thus, the increased cost of the 
lunch would be 6¢, and the gain in Federal subsidies would be only 3¢, 
making an increased net cost in each meal of 3 ¢. 

"Based on an estimated 75,000 average daily pupil meals at the ele­
mentary level, the estimated increased net annual cost for participating 
in the National School Lunch Program would be $391,500. If the 
increased cost of the program were to come from the General Fund, it 
would be in conflict with present [Governing] Board policy which re­
quires the cafeteria program to be self-sustaining." 

3. Effect on Pupil Partidpation 
If the increased costs could not be borne out of general funds, 

because of this conflict with Board policy, the only other way they could 
be financed would be by increasing the selling price of the lunch to the 
children. 

But, "Historically, an increase in the selling price of the tray lunch 
at the elementary level has resulted in a general reduction of pupil par-

115 



ticipation from 13 per cent to 17 per cent. It can be projected that 
a 3¢ to 5¢ increase in the selling price would, therefore, result in a re­
duction of participation. Thus, an increase in the price to pupils of the 
elementary lunch will result in the lunch program providing a service to 
a smaller number of pupils." 

4. Free Lunches 

"The National School Lunch Program requires that meals be of­
fered to all children and shall be served at a reduced cost or free to 
children unable to pay the full cost as determined by the Governing 
Board." 

HOW THE LOS ANGELES 
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM OPERA TES 

Because Los Angeles does not participate in the National School 
Lunch Program, records are not kept in the usual way, and it has proved 
somewhat difficult to pick out the comparable data used elsewhere in this 
study. As one example, 28 adult schools and five junior colleges are 
included in the over-all figures. Also, Los Angeles County is responsible 
for contributions for free lunches, so there is no distinction in figures 
between county and city schools. 

In spite of these handicaps, certain facts emerge clearly: 

1. Thirty per cent of the elementary school students participate in 
the school lunch program-about 100,000 out of 369,000 children. 

2. The cost of the lunch is 35¢ to elementary school children, 
and 4 7 ¢ to junior high and high school students, the price for the junior 
high and high having increased 5 ¢ in the past year. However, high school 
students may also purchase a la carte lunches, and records of how many 
4 7 ¢ plate lunches are sold and how many a la carte lunches are sold 
are not kept separately. 

3. The schools are served in three ways: 444 schools have cafo­
terias and prepare their own food; one central kitchen prepares hot 
lunches for five schools; and 32 schools have bag-lunch programs. 

4. There are 44 schools without any lunch program at all, but 
"with the present bag lunch and the new cafeterias planned by 1969, 
all schools in slum areas will have lunch programs." 

Financing 

As previously noted, the policy of the Los Angeles Governing 
Board is that the school lunch program must be self-sustaining. As a 

116 

result, what the children pay for their lunches is 94.68 per cent of the cost 
of the program. Federal surplus commodities and special county alloca­
tions for needy students (see below) make up the balance. 

The Local School Lunch Director reports that beginning January, 
1968, Los Angeles schools will receive $51,000 in Sec. 11 Special 
Assistance to be spent on a bag-lunch program in 32 schools presently 
excluded from the program because of lack of facilities. 

Feeding Needy Children 

The number of needy children given free lunches in the Los Angeles 
School Lunch Program is microscopically small: about 1,110 children, 
or six-tenths of one per cent of the number of lunches served. No reduced 
price lunches are served. 

The money for the free lunches is provided in two ways. Private 
charity-the United Fund, local PT As, the Milk Bowl and individual 
contributions-is one way. It is administered by the PTA, which re­
ceives the money from the private groups and determines the eligibility of 
the children for free lunch. The PTA aid goes only to "undernourished" 
children, which in this context means those with a special health prob­
lem. It goes only to those children who are not receiving state or county 
welfare. 

According to a report from the Director of the Food Services Branch 
of the Los Angeles City Schools: 

"There are disparities between schools in the program because of 
the differences in school administrators, nurses and doctors. Some school 
administrators do not participate in the PTA program because they feel 
students should work for any free meals. Lincoln High School has a par­
ticularly large program because the school nurse there is concerned about 
the incidence of TB in that area." 

In addition, Los Angeles County provides free lunches for children 
who are both "undernourished" and "aided." "Aided" means receiving 
public assistance through the Los Angeles County Bureau of Public 
Assistance under either AFDC or aid to indigents. The county budget 
this year for the program is $54,000. In four school districts, this county 
money is also administered by the PTA. The county pays the money 
directly to the PT A which sets the standard for undernourishment after 
the child is so certified by the school doctor or nurse. 

In any case, it should be kept in mind that in a county where 140,-
000 school age children have been identified as either coming from homes 
where the yearly income is less than $2,000 and/ or whose families are 

117 



receiving AFDC, only 1, 110 children are receiving free lunches from both 
public and private sources combined. 

There are three school districts in the county which do participate 
in the regular National School Lunch Program. This year the California 
State Department of Education provided $75,000 for this program, thus 
making up the difference between the National School Lunch subsidy in 
California and 15¢ per meal, which is what the students pay. Over 300 
free meals are served per day. Participation is approximately 85 per cent 
of the enrollment. 

ESEA Free Lunch Program 

As in communities where the free lunch provisions of the regular 
National School Lunch Program are either inadequate or non-existent, 
ESEA funds many of the free lunches. Of 434 schools in Los Angeles, 63 
either have ESEA food programs or will have them in the coming year. 
Thus, it appears in Los Angeles as elsewhere, that the free lunch program 
is being carried for the most part by ESEA. 

Breakfast Program 

Although Los Angeles does not participate in the National School 
Lunch Program, it does participate in the pilot breakfast program under 
the Child Nutrition Act. In fact, Los Angeles receives the entire $66,000 
allocated to California under the act. 

The program operates in three schools, with two more to be added 
in January, 1968. The breakfast costs 10¢ and none are provided free. 
The Los Angeles School Lunch Director notes that reaction to the Break­
fast Program has been "rather poor." There is only 20 per cent participa­
tion in the three schools where it is available, not because of the cost, 
but because the children have to come early enough to eat. 

In comparing Los Angeles as a non-participating community with 
the participating communities we have studied, we can see that: 

Its rate of participation-30 per cent-is about average. 

The price of the lunch-35¢ to 47¢-is slightly above average. If 
we weighted this figure by noting that the nutritional content of these 
lunches is admittedly lower than the Department of Agriculture standards 
for an "A" lunch, we would have to say that the price is considerably 
higher than the average in other communities studied. 

Its percentage of free lunches is second from the bottom of all com­
minities studies. Only Little Rock, among the communities we studied, 
relies so heavily on ESEA to provide free lunches. 

118 

As long as the policy of the Los Angeles Board ~ to make the 
school lunch program entirely self-supporting, so long will the number 
of free lunches continue to be low, and so long will the s:hool system 
find it profitable to refrain from participating in the National School 
Lunch Program. 

119 



14 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

This report has stressed over and over again that the present opera­
tion of the National School Lunch Program is inadequate in meeting the 
needs it was designed to serve. First of all, the funds are inadequate. 
They are inadequate on the Federal, state and local levels. They are 
inadequate to keep the prices of the lunch at a point which would increase 
participation significantly; they are inadequate to serve needy children 
free and reduced priced lunches; they are inadequate to provide training 
to administrators and those responsible for food preparation. 

School lunch administrators all over the country are beginning to 
express their sense of defeat about coping with this financial burden which 
grows larger every year. Articles in the School Lunch Journal, the field's 
professional journal, talk about "the deepening crisis of the school lunch 
program'', "the inability to hold the line on prices'', "the ever-decreasing 
federal contributions." The phrase "drop-out" is being applied to the 
National School Lunch Program with increased frequency. 

120 

Perhaps even more important, a feeling of dissatisfaction, of unrest 
about the School Lunch Program pervades those communities where 
children are excluded from the program. The parents of these chil­
dren are not professionals-they are not interested in the average 
contribution per lunch of donated commodities and the Federal cash 
reimbursement, or what percentage of funds are contributed by the state. 
What they are interested in is that the lunches are priced out of reach 
for those who could pay something; and the majority of those who can­
not pay are denied the opportunity to receive a benefit which is theirs by 
law. 

This community concern is a real and growing one. The National 
School Lunch Program has been a source of organized community 
protest in New Mexico, California, Ohio, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas 
and Pennsylvania. The list is likely to grow longer. 

So the most important and the most detailed recommendations we 
make in this report are those which concern financing. But we have a 
larger concern. 

From our talks with school administrators, local, state and Federal 
officials, legislators and parents, we have come to the conclusion .1?at 
unless the School Lunch Program is accepted as a means of providing 
good nutrition for all our children in order to insure ~eir pres~nt ability 
to absorb the education that is offered them, to help msure their present 
and future health and to help insure their present and future functioning 
as responsible citlzens, it will never be adequately financed and it will 
never be properly run. 

This is hardly an original thought-on the surface it seems like a 
mere repetition of the language of the National School Act itself .. But 
unfortunately, this attitude is not the prevalent one among many legisla­
tors, school lunch administrators, or community officials. 

Too many legislators view the National School Lunch Program 
primarily as a convenient market for surplus commodities. 

Too many school administrators regard the School Lunch Program 
as a welfare burden, not an educational responsibility. 

Too many school principals regard the school lunch program as ~ 
administrative headache, not a means of raising the level of acadellllc 
performance. 

And woven into these attitudes are some darker threads of dislike 
and distrust. "They"-the poor-are "no good." "They" are trying to 
get something for nothing. "They" drink. If "they" won't provide for 
their own children, it is not our responsibility. 

121 



Too many legislators, school administrators, school principals and 
community officials regard the National School Lunch Program as one in 
which the books must balance. If the program cannot be made to pay 
off financially in a poor school, it ought to be eliminated, they feel. But 
by showing a financial profit, we may show a corresponding loss in the 
nourishment of our children, and mortgage their future well-being-a 
costly profit to our nation indeed. 

If these attitudes persist, they will wreck the National School Lunch 
Program. For if the National School Lunch Program is viewed as a 
business which must pay for itself or is administered unfairly, then it 
cannot simultaneously be viewed as an opportunity to provide America's 
children-all her children-with a start toward a healthy and productive 
life. And if it is not viewed this way, the financing of it will continue to 
be grudging, insufficient and unsuccessful. 

On the following pages are our formal recommendations based on the 
material in this study. They are addressed to the President, to Department 
of Agriculture, to Congress, to school lunch administrators and to pro­
fessionals in the food service field. But in addition to these groups, 
voluntary agencies as well as official bodies have educational jobs to do: 

1. We must educate parents about good nutrition. We must tell 
them about the school lunch program and inform them that their children 
have a right to be included in it. 

2. We must convince educators, school board members and state 
legislators and the total community about the need to support the Na­
tional School Lunch Program at the state and local level. 

3. We must develop a national awareness that adequate nutrition 
is an essential part of education-without it, the most sophisticated ad­
vances in educational techniques are meaningless. "You can't teach a 
hungry child" must be first understood, and second translated into a 
sound nutrition program, starting first with the school lunch. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The price of the school lunch should be reduced to place it within 
the reach of the majority of children. We believe, along with many 
State School Lunch Directors, that a maximum price of 20¢ would 
make this possible. Reduction in price, a feasible short-run objective, 
could be achieved by the following combination of Federal, state 
and local action: 

a. Increased Federal Contribution: Congress should set a standard 
below which the Federal cash reimbursement per lunch should not 

122 

be allowed to drop. We recommend that the 9¢ reimbursement 
be restored as a preliminary step. The minimum Federal reim­
bursement should be so calculated that, combined with the 
states' contributions and the donated foods, it will keep the price 
at the 20¢ maximum. 

b. Increased Contributions from the States: The formula should be 
changed to require the states to match the Federal contribution on 
a one-to-one basis. That is, if the Federal Government provides 
9¢ per lunch, the states must also provide 9¢ per lunch. But the 
regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
should specify that the states are not allowed to include in their 
matching funds the children's fees, funds from private charity, or 
the costs of program administration, construction or equipment. 
The money should come from state appropriations out of state 
revenues. The formula could be adjusted, as it is now, to permit 
states with a per capita income lower than the national average 
to contribute proportionately less. 

c. Increased Local Contributions: The local school district should 
pay for local administration, labor and equipment for school 
food service as a regular item in its budget. The USDA Regula­
tions should specify that children's fees may be used only to 
cover the cost of the food served to them. 

d. A Dependable Level of Commodities: The cash value of donated 
commodities should be maintained at a steady and dependable 
level. The current standard should be 11 ¢ per meal, but subject 
to change should food costs rise. If the income from tariffs is not 
sufficient to maintain this level, or if the available supply of price 
support foods is not sufficient, Congress should appropriate special 
funds to ensure this level of support. 

The value of the more highly nutritious Sec. 6 foods should con­
stitute 50% of the cash value of all donated commodities. With 
more funds available from within the state, State Directors would 
have more flexibility and could make advantageous commodity 
purchases within their area. 

2. The Regulations should be changed to require that the local public 
school district should be the unit which contracts to participate in the 
National School Lunch Program, not the individual school.* 

As a condition of participation, the school district should be required 

• Parochial schools, where so required by state law, would continue to deal directly 
and individually with the Federal Government. 

123 



to make the program available without discrimination to all schools, 
to submit a total plan showing how the service will be provided in 
each school, and to explain the exclusion of any school under its juris­
diction. 

Lack of facilities, the enrollment of large numbers of poor children, 
or the fact that a school is a neighborhood school where children can 
go home for lunch should not be considered valid reasons for exclud­
ing schools from the program. 

The contract should obligate a school district to feed all of its needy 
children. These children should be identified in advance, according 
to a uniform Federal standard, and the district should report to USDA 
its plan for including them in the National School Lunch Program. 

3. Higher reimbursement rates and increased Special Assistance (Sec. 
11) funds should be made available to schools which serve a high pr~ 
portion of needy children. Increased Federal and state financial sup­
port to reduce the price to 20¢, plus the requirement that the pro­
gram must be available district-wide, will put the school lunch within 
the reach of most children. But there will still be schools in poor 
neighborhoods which will need extra assistance. 

a. School districts containing schools in poor neighborhoods and/ or 
a high percentage of poor children should get a higher reimburse­
ment rate out of general school lunch funds. This would enable 
them to reduce the price below 20¢ and across the board in pov­
erty-impacted schools and to offer free or reduced-price meals to 
poor children wherever they are in the district. 

b. Special Assistance (Sec. 11) funds should be sufficient to help 
the states feed all of their needy pupils, not just a token few. As a 
first step, Congress should appropriate the $10 million originally 
authorized for Special Assistance. Subsequent appropriations (fol­
lowing this one) should be based not on the number of free meals 
served in the previous years, but on the estimated number of 
children who will need assistance in the fiscal year for which 
the appropriation is made. 

Ultimately, the School Lunch Program should be adequately 
funded on the national and state levels so that Special Assistance 
would not be necessary. But until that time Special Assistance 
will have to be vastly increased to be effective. 

4. Children should be eligible for free or reduced price lunches accord­
ing to a uniform standard of need. All school children in families 

124 

below the poverty level established by the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA), plus all school children in families receiving 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), should be auto­
matically eligible. Children in large families with marginal incomes, 
even though they are not on welfare or below the poverty level, should 
be added. 

5. Identifying needy children by such practies as using special tokens or 
different color tickets, by calling out the names of those receiving free 
or reduced price meals, by collecting money in a conspicuously dif­
ferent way, by forcing them to go to the end of the cafeteria line or 
by requiring them to work should be specifically banned by USDA 
Regulations. We do not object to giving all children the opportunity 
to earn money or credit for community service. But to make their 
eating dependent on cafeteria work is humiliating and psychologically 
unsound. 

6. All school food service should be put under one administration at all 
levels- national, state and local- to promote uni/ orm funding, stan­
dards of eligibility, record-keeping and review and to effect greater 
efficiency and coordination. The need for special programs to provide 
lunches and breakfasts to needy students will continue until the 
National School Lunch Program becomes truly inclusive. We look 
forward to the time when all special efforts, with their separate ad­
ministrations, will not be necessary. 

7. USDA and the states should assume greater responsibility for im­
proving the administration of the National School Lunch Program. 
Higher levels of administrative and business skill as well as compe­
tence in food service are required if the program is to be of greater 
benefit at a lower cost. 

The major burden will be on the states who carry traditionally the 
responsibility for professional standards, training and certification. 
The states should accelerate their efforts in training, upgrading and 
certification and should hasten the time when only certified persons 
will be eligible for employment. 
USDA should set guidelines for program standards, administrative 
reviews and record-keeping. Federal grants to strengthen the adminis­
tration of the state and local school lunch divisions should be pro­
vided. 

8. The Congress, USDA, Boards of Education, state legislators, school 
lunch administrators should begin planning now for a universal free 
school lunch program as part of a coordinated plan for better nutrition 
for all children. 

125 



We believe that school lunch should be served to all children as a 
matter of course. Each child should be given his school lunch in the 
same way that the majority of children now receive their books and 
school equipment. The school lunch should be a basic part of the 
free public school education to which every child has a right. 

Part of the malaise of the present school lunch program is that it is 
isolated from the rest of the child's education. More important, its 
present operation bears little relation to the needs of today's children. 
What is needed is a total plan which will unify the present piecemeal 
system, modernize its administration and integrate it into the total 
educational process. 

In order to achieve this goal, we recommend a two-stage program: 

a. Congress should provide incentive grants to school districts, 
municipalities or counties to develop model nutritional and food 
service programs for children and youth. These models should 
include: a scientific analysis of nutritional needs; a total food ser­
vice plan for maximum participation, free or at low cost, for chil­
dren of all ages; experimentation with developments in food tech­
nology; increased efficiency and professional upgrading in already 
existing programs; community involvement in nutrition education; 
coordination with other community planning efforts for improv­
ing health and education. 

b. The President should appoint a National Commission with a 
mandate to design a federally sponsored free nutrition and food 
service program for children and youth. The Commission should 
gather data about the nutritional status of America's children, 
evaluate all food service programs, and review the experiences 
of other countries with universal programs. Based on their study, 
the Commission should make recommendations about how a uni­
versal free school lunch program should be financed and ad­
ministered. It should create the blueprint for a total nutrition 
program which would include not only the free school lunch but 
which would cover children's nutritional and health needs all 
day, every day. 

The Commission should be broadly based and should include 
educators, nutritionists, economists, experts in food technology, 
school lunch administrators and parents. 

"It is my firm conviction that to make lunch a fully educational 
project, it is necessary that it be offered free to all the children every 

126 

day . . . It is a growing conviction that a proper lunch is just as important 
as proper teaching, and that can be controlled only by having lunches 
offered to all children in the school ... We are living in an age where 
the schools will assume more and more responsibility for the children 
and when such responsibilities are assumed, we in the school lunch field 
cannot neglect our obligation to the hungry child and to all children." 

George Mueller, Late Comptroller, 
Board of Education, Kansas City, Missouri, 
School Lunch Journal, July-August 1966 

127 



Appendix 

HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE 

This study was designed to be conducted by volunteers, not experts. 
From the beginning we felt that one of its chief values lies in providing 
American women with an opportunity to learn about how their children 
fare at the school lunch table in their own communities, working with 
people they know and with whom they have a continuing relationship. 

In order to provide a setting for this, each of the sponsoring organi­
zations appointed two representatives to a board which became the Com­
mittee on School Lunch Participation. Their names and affiliations are 
listed at the end of the Appendix. 

The Field Foundation made a grant of $25,000 to the National 
Council of Catholic Women which provided the fiscal administration for 
the project. 

The Committee's first task was to draw up a list of communities to 
be studied. The factors that determined the initial choice of 60 com-

128 

munities were: a) a balance between large urban centers, middle-sized 
cities, and small, rural towns and counties; b) geographical distribution; 
and c) proper representation of minority groups-Negroes, Mexican­
Americans, American Indians, Spanish-Americans-and income levels. 

We then asked the executive director of each sponsoring organiza­
tion to tell us, for each community, whether the membership strength in 
it was sufficient so that the local chapter of her organization could lead 
the study, cooperate in it, or was not able to do either. The organizations' 
field staff consulted with local chapters to assess whether there would be 
interest in the study and available womanpower to do it in view of their 
other pressing programs and our time schedule. 

Based on the information we received from the organization, the 
tentative list was revised and pared down. For instance, Pittsburgh had 
originally been suggested as a big Northern city to be studied, but other 
commitments of the organizations there indicated that we would not have 
sufficient workers. So Philadelphia, where leadership was available, was 
substituted. 

After the communities had been selected, the national organizations 
sent the Committee the names of the women in each community who had 
agreed to provide leadership. They also sent us, where available, the 
names of those women in each community who could cooperate in the 
study which was being led by the members of another organization. Each 
national organization then notified all the leaders and cooperators that 
they would shortly receive the study materials from the Committee on 
School Lunch Participation. 

This system of getting volunteers to conduct the study, however, 
could work only in middle-sized or large cities. The sponsoring organiza­
tions often do not have chapters in small towns or rural areas. Our Com­
mittee felt strongly, however, that a study confined only to cities and 
which omitted rural areas and small towns would lack balance. The Com­
mittee, therefore, also included smaller communities, where there are no 
organizational chapters. It then became our job to find individuals, not 
necessarily connected with the sponsoring organizations, to organize the 
studies in these smaller centers. 

In some instances, a member of the Committee had a suggestion to 
make. Fortunately, we were able to rely upon staff members of the 
American Friends Service Committee. Without their invaluable help, 
the small center studies could not have been conducted. The AFSC staff 
people who participated in the community studies are: Winifred Green, 
Sumter County, Alabama; Ted Robinson, Bridgeton, New Jersey; 

129 



Patricia Mizell, Sumter and Lee Counties, South Carolina; and Joan 
Anderson, Marysville and La Conner, Washington. Mrs. Electra Price, 
an AFSC staff member, supervised the studies conducted in Oakland, 
Richmond and Los Angeles, California. 

We also consulted with AFSC staff members in the selection of 
communities with a large American Indian population and they secured 
the help of Sister Providenzia, a Catholic teaching sister, who conducted 
the community study in Great Falls, Montana. 

One other person not connected with the sponsoring organizations 
played a major role in conducting the community studies. Mrs. Frances 
Pauley, the former Director of the Georgia Council on Human Relations, 
supervised all the Southern community studies. Mrs. Pauley was able to 
pull effective groups together even where national organizations could 
only provide a small reservoir of womanpower upon which to draw. 

In addition to the community studies, the Committee decided to 
conduct interviews with the State School Lunch Director in as many 
states as possible. In many cases where the state capitol was near a com­
munity being studied, or in the few communities where it was the one 
under study, the sponsoring organizations were able to secure an inter­
viewer from among their own membership. Some state capitols were 
long distances away from members' homes and, in these cases, the per­
son conducting the interview was suggested by Committee members, 
and was not necessarily active in one of the sponsoring organizations. 

We were able to conduct extended interviews, of ten lasting three to 
five hours and sometimes all day, with 39 State School Lunch Directors. 
The states in which these interviews were conducted follow: 

Alabama Michigan 
Arizona Minnesota 
Arkansas Mississippi 
California Missouri 
Colorado Nebraska 
Florida New Hampshire 
Georgia New Jersey 
Illinois New Mexico 
Iowa New York 
Kansas North Carolina 
Louisiana Ohio 
Maine 
Maryland 
Massachusetts 

Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 

130 

Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 
Texas 
Utah 

Vermont 
Virginia 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Wisconsin 

. The Committee had set a goal of completing 50 community studies. 
This goal was not quite reached-one community withdrew from the 
study; in a few, only partial studies were completed; and in several, while 
the study group did not formally withdraw, they could not get their group 
sufficiently well organized to complete even part of the study. The 40 
communities in which the studies were completed are: 

Mobile, Alabama Jackson, Mississippi 
Sumter County, Alabama Mound Bayou, Mississippi 
Tucson, Arizona Great Falls, Montana 
Little Rock, Arkansas Reno, Nevada 
Oakland, California Bridgeton, New Jersey 
Richmond, California Alburquerque, New Mexico 
Denver, Colorado Buffalo, New York 
Washington, D. C. Charlotte, North Carolina 
Palm Beach County, Florida Cleveland, Ohio 
Tallahassee, Florida Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
Augusta, Georgia Sumter County, South Carolina 
Taliaferro County, Georgia Lee County, South Carolina 
Carbondale, Illinois Fayette County, Tennessee 
Gary, Indiana Memphis, Tennessee 
Knott County, Kentucky Donna, Texas 
Rock Castle County, Kentucky Norfolk, Virginia 
New Orleans, Louisiana Seattle, Washington 
Springfield, Massachusetts Marysville, Washington 
Detroit, Michigan La Conner, Washington 
Minneapolis, Minnesota Green Bay, Wisconsin 

In addition, partial studies containing enough useful information 
to be included in this report were done in the following communities: 

Los Angeles, California Newburgh, New York 
Tulare County, California Jefferson City, Missouri 
Peoria, Illinois 

We also visited St. Louis, New York, Greeley, Colorado, and Kan­
sas City, Missouri, to look at special projects. 

131 



The selection of the communities and the search for volunteers to 
conduct studies was accomplished during August and September of 1967. 
During these months, the Chairman, the Director of the study, and Com­
mittee members conferred with Department of Agriculture officials, ex­
perts in nutrition and institutional management, staff members of the 
American School Food Service Association, and school lunch admin­
istrators. 

The result was the Community Study Kit, which contained the 
following materials: 

a) A section explaining briefly how the National School Lunch 
Program operates. 

b) Suggestions on how to organize the study in each community­
including the persons to be interviewed and when the studies had to be 
completed. 

c) Questionnaires for the Local School Lunch Director, the local 
Welfare Director, the public health official, the Federal Programs Direc­
tor, school principals, classroom teachers and parents. 

d) A brief explanation of what the terms used in the questionnaires 
meant with suggestions about conducting the interview. 

We also included a questionnaire for directors of parochial schools. 
But the questionnaires that were returned did not have enough consistent 
information to give us a clear picture of how the School Lunch Program 
operates in parochial schools; nor did we receive enough data for a valid 
sample. This section of the kit, therefore, was not used in writing this 
report. 

During this period, also, the much longer, more complicated ques­
tionnaire for the State School Lunch Director was devised. Since it was 
such a detailed document, it was tested out on the School Lunch Direc­
tors in Maryland, South Carolina and Florida who were most helpful in 
suggesting changes and clarifications. 

Then, the whole kit and the State School Lunch Director question­
naire were submitted to the Director of the School Lunch Division 
of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Herbert Rorex. He gave the 
material his careful scrutiny for accuracy, spending a great deal of time 
and effort to make sure the questions were valid. He bears, however, 
no responsibility for the way in which the questions were phrased. He 
concerned himself only with the technical correctness of the questions. 

In October, 1967, the Committee reviewed the total output of ma­
terials and made some revisions. Then the materials were sent out to the 
previously designated study leaders. 

132 

Most of the state and community interviews were conducted from 
late October through the middle of January. The report was written early 
in 1968 and approved by the Committee in early March. 

The Committee would like to express appreciation to the National 
Council of Catholic Women for the financial administration of the grant 
and to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund for the able 
secretarial services, especially of Mrs. Lolita Livingston, and for the 
services of Miss Brooke Aronson, who provided staff assistance to the 
Committee and to the Director. 

One final word about this study: All of us who have worked on it­
volunteer interviewers, the chairman, the Executive Committee and the 
Director consider that this report is the beginning, not the end of our 
efforts. It is not by any means the last word on the school lunch program. 
We hope that this small beginning may inspire community groups, school 
lunch administrators, federal officials and Congressmen to undertake more 
searching studies so that they can understand how the program operates 
now and how it can be made to operate better in the future. 

COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL LUNCH PARTICIPATION 

Church Women United 

Mrs. MargaretM. Morris 

Project Director, National Committee on Household Employment; 
formerly, Chief of Technical Services, National School Lunch 
Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Technical Secretary for 
Home and Community, President's Commission on the Status of 
Women; Home Economics Consultant, President's Committee on 
Consumer Interests. 

Mrs. Katharine P. Riddle 

Associate Secretary and Home Economist, Committee on Agricul­
ture and Rural Life, Division of Overseas Ministries National 
Council of _Churches of Christ/USA; nutrition consult~t, Church 
Women Umted. 

National Board of the Y.W.C.A. 

Julia F. Allen 

Dean of Women, Emeritus, Berea College, Berea, Kentucky; mem­
ber, Executive Committee, National Board of the Y.W.C.A.; mem­
ber, Board, Central Kentucky Civil Liberties Union. 

Dorothy B. Ferebee, M.D. 

Assistant Professor of Preventive Medicine and Medical Supervisor 
of Health Activities, Howard University, Washington, D.C.; Medi-

133 



cal Consultant, U.S. Department of State and Peace Corps and 
U.S. delegate, World Health Organization Assembly, 1967; Presi­
dent, Southeast (Washington) Settlement House; former Medical 
Director, Mississippi Health Project; National Chairman of Publica­
tions, Y.W.C.A. 

National Council of Catholic Women 

Sister Melathon Heister, C.S.C.; M.S.W. 
Director, Sisters Urban Center, Washington, D.C.; Assistant Direc­
tor, Southeast (Washington) Catholic Center; member, Archdio­
cesan Board of Education; formerly, teacher, elementary school 
principal and superintendent of a boys' home; articles in Catholic 
Charities Review and National Catholic Education Association 
Bulletin. 

Mm. Maxwell H. Stokes 
National Director, National Council of Catholic Women; Secretary, 
District of Columbia Public Welfare Advisory Council.; Treasurer, 
National Christ Child Society. 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Mrs. William J. Cooper 
Education System Representative, Burroughs Corporation; Program 
Adviser, Omaha Job Corps Center for Women; corporate member 
and first President, Women in Community Services (WICS); 
formerly member, National Board of the National Council of Jewish 
Women. 

Mrs. Daniel Schreiber 
Chairman, Education Subcommittee, Program Development Com­
mittee, National Council of Jewish Women; member, Inter-Religious 
Relations Committee, National Community Relations Advisory 
Council; corrective reading teacher, ESEA (Title I) program, New 
York City. 

National Council of Negro Women 

Janet L. Douglass 

Project Director, National Council of Negro Women; member, 
Board of the Association of Black Social Workers. 

Mrs. Dorothy Shaed Proctor 
School psychologist and former teacher, public schools, Washington, 
D. C.; member, Boards of Directors, Social Hygiene Society of 
Metropolitan Washington and Ionia Whipper Home for Unwed 
Mothers; National Consumer Representative, National Council of 
Negro Women. 

134 

Chairman, Committee on School Lunch Participation 

Jean Fairfax 
Director, Division of Legal Information and Community Service, 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; delegate, 
Fourth Assembly, World Council of Churches, 1968; formerly, 
National Representative for Southern Programs, Community Re­
lations Division, American Friends Service Committee; Vice­
Chairman, Council for Christian Social Action, United Church 
of Christ. 

135 



Committee on 
School Lunch Participation 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 

New York, New York 10019