Prepared by the Illinois Religious Committee on Welfare Reform, 615 South Fifth Street, Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 544-3423; with the The Public Welfare Coalition, 30 N. Michigan, Rm. 1410, Chicago, 60602 (312) 236-8308 The Illinois Consortium on Governmental Concerns, 615 South Fifth Street, Springfield, 62703 (217) 544-3423 Nancy Safford. Rich Wood Price 30 per copy 1/81 Revision STATEMENT OF THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION The Illinois State Board of Education administers seven Child Nutrition Programs for the United States Department of Agriculture. We appreciate this opportunity to present our evaluation of the proposed 1982 budget cuts as they affect the Child Nutrition Programs in Illinois. We will not bore you by repeating the data shown on charts A and B attached to copies of this presentation. To simply summarize the impact of these declining reimbursements, we estimate that, as a result of the cutbacks in the fiscal year 1981 Omnibus Reconciliation Bill-Public Law 96-499, and the proposed fiscal year 1982 budget cuts, the loss to Illinois Child Nutrition Programs will be 40 to 50 million dollars annually. Rather than reiterating the impact on Illinois in dollars alone, we would like to share with you how we see the past and future of the school lunch programs in our State. In 1946, the Congress of the United States passed the first National School Lunch Act. Incorporated therein as a policy statement, "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 agriculture commodities and other foods, by assisting the states, through grants in aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of foods and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.' I bring to your attention the portion of the preamble referring to national security. This was the result of General Hershey, head of Selective Service during World War II, finding that the equivalent of 10 divisions of men were rejected for causes directly traceable to malnutrition in their youth. While we do not generally view the purpose of Child Nutrition Programs as developing tomorrow's military personnel, healthy, well-nourished, youths are unquestionably priceless national assets. During the last decade, Illinois' participation in the National School Lunch Program has grown from 149 million lunches annually to 172 million iu 1980, an increase of 23 million meals annually. We would further point out that this growth is in spite of declining enrollment in our schools. With the competitive pricing edge gone, the School Lunch Programs will very likely have to convert to a large extent to the fast food type of meals to attract the paying students and meet fixed costs. This conversion will be further accelerated by the proposed elimination of the Nutrition Education and Training Program. One of the ultimate goals for the School Lunch Programs has been to provide students with sufficient knowledge of food and nutrition to make intelligent choices. The proposed 1982 budget eliminates this program and its educational contribution. The choice of nutritious well-balanced meals will no longer have an economical advantage and will be limited in its acceptance by the paying child. This in turn will have an impact on cost, where there are dual programs running parallel, and we are realistic enough to envision the emphasis being placed on the paying clientele. This clientele in Illinois represents over 54 percent of the total meals served, and in high schools, a much higher percentage. Therefore, the impact will have not only economic ramifications but certainly socially undesirable ramifications. The child receiving a free or reduced price meal will become quite obvious when a dual serving program is operational. Further, it is not impossible to conceive that in many states such a dual program may not be possible due to lack of facilities. Therefore, we can readily expect there will be a certain number of districts which will experience substantial decreases in participation by the paying student which in turn will result in cost increases for free and reduced price meals as volume decreases. It is not inconceivable that the future may have a School Lunch Program which provides meals only to the free and reduced price students or those who have been defined as the truly needy. We would further like to call to the Committee's attention the impact that the lack of availability of agricultural surplus foods will have on the paying child's meals. Donated meats have provided highly acceptable components of school lunches. Under the proposed program, they would be available only to the (poverty) truly needy. This again is going to add to the dual program distinction. We implore you to take a long cold look at any reduction in commodities for all nutritious school lunches served to all students. This program has been mutually beneficial to agriculture and to the recipients. Further, we call to your attention that the use of agricultural surplus not only goes to schools but also to a large number of welfare organizations such as the Salvation Army, Catholic charities, and many missions for the truly needy. In addition, this program has provided an immediate source of food for disaster relief. This is the one Federal program that has been of assistance to those providing meals to the truly destitute. In summation, the impact of the proposed reductions go far beyond a cash reduction. We see that, after almost three and one-half decades of school lunch rooms being a common meeting place of students from every economic background, race, color, and creed with a common nutrition bond of well-prepared, balanced meals, the lunch programs potentially being converted into feeding stations for the truly needy with fast food lines for those who have been defined as able to pay for their own lunches. This development of a social and economic distinction will have a very undesirable impact on the youth of our nation. The eligibility changes for free and reduced price meals, by elimination of the hardship provision, will undoubtedly transfer a number of students who were eligible for free meals in the past into the reduced price category and a number of the reduced price into paid meals. The impact of this change in status will convert a substantial number of students back to carrying lunches. There is sufficient evidence that the contents of bag lunches lack balanced nutrition. Further, the fact that bag lunches are stored in school lockers, etc., for three to five hours without refrigeration does pose a potential health hazard. Increased cost to the paying child does decrease participation. The Elgin School District increased the lunch price 5 cents on Februray 2, 1981. By February 28, participation dropped 12 percent. Can we surmise what will happen if 35 cents is added to the student cost for lunch? During fiscal year 1980, Federal reimbursement amounted to approximately $120 million. This amount was not only matched but exceeded by student payments and State contributions. These combined food service dollars of $240 to $300 million annually are in turn paid out in taxable wages, purchase of food, equipment, and supplies. The impact of the proposed fiscal year 1982 program reductions could reduce this flow of dollars by 50 percent. The economic results of this reduction would have a very negative effect on the business community and possibly the loss of up to 8,000 jobs in Illinois alone. In summary, it appears to us that the proposed budget cuts eliminate the commitment which was made in 1946 by the 79th Congress to the people of America to make available a well-balanced, nutritious lunch to children of school age. We thank you for listening to our views and we leave you with one final thought. Before we cut too deeply into agricultural programs, it might be well to remember, but for our nation being blessed with six inches of Mother Earth's finest top soil and God-given rains, none of us would be here to discuss these programs. 81-492 0 - 81 22 Aid to Families with Dependent Children 1. The "Regular" AFDC Program - 648,722 people in Illinois (down from 720,000 in 1973) Congress established AFDC in 1935 to provide income for children whose fathers were absent due to death, desertion. or divorce. The states were given the responsibility to administer the program and to determine the grant levels. The Federal Government pays 50% of the cost of Illinois' AFDC program; the state pays the other 50%. How Large Is A Typical AFDC Family? The vast majority of AFDC families consist of a mother and her children. (In a few cases some other relative is the grantee. A family is eligible if there is a disabled father in the home.) The average number of children per family has declined from 31⁄2 ten years ago to 21⁄2 today, showing the effect of birth control services. 37% of AFDC families consist of a mother and one child. How Long Does The Typical Family Stay On AFDC? The average stay on AFDC is less than three years. This shows that most of the mothers need help only in a crisis period, and manage to become self-supporting again. Those families which stay on the rolls for a long time are headed mainly by women with poor health, few marketable skills, or serious mental and/or emotional problems. 2. The "AFDC-U” (Unemployed Parent) Program Since 1960 Congress has permitted the states to give AFDC to families with fathers living in the home. provided the fathers meet certain requirements. Currently they must: a. be unemployed, or employed less than 100 hours per month. b. have exhausted their unemployment benefits. or be receiving benefits which are so low that they must be supplemented up to the welfare standard. c. have worked within the last four years. Could Most AFDC Mothers Secure Employment? About 7% of the mothers are employed, and receive a grant to supplement their low wages. (An employed recipient may have total income which exceeds the regular AFDC grant by $30 per month, plus 1/3 of gross salary.) Although the original purpose of AFDC was to enable mothers to stay home and care for their children, federal policy now requires those with no pre-schoolers to register for employment. Yet very inadequate help is given most registrants in securing jobs. Perhaps half of all AFDC mothers could work if job training, better job placement service, and adequate child care were available. ("Adequate child care" is a very important issue, as many AFDC families live in "dangerous neighborhoods" and mothers greatly fear leaving their children unsupervised.) Could The Absent Fathers Support These Families? Fathers are taken to court and required to provide some support if they are able. A high percentage of the fathers are unemployed, employed at low wages, or cannot be located. 33,203 people in Illinois (down from 50,000 in 1973) Young fathers with no work history are excluded, so the system gives them no incentive to stay with their families Very recently a court decision has required that this program be made available to families in which the mother meets the above requirements, provided both parents are in the home. Even so, this is a relatively small program in Illinois. The number of families at any given time averages somewhere around 5% of all AFDC families. The exact number depends on the current unemployment rate, and hence on the state of the economy. In addition, a family is eligible for medical care, and for food stamps in an amount dependent on such variables as amount of income and housing costs. A family of four in a Group I county, getting a grant of $368, might get a food stamp bonus as follows: The grants are identical in the AFDC-Regular and AFDC-U programs. Family size Counties** Group III Monthly Rent & Utility Cost Boone, Champaign, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage. Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, Ogle. Whiteside, Winnebago, Woodford. **Adams, Bureau, Carroll, Clinton. Coles, De Witt, Douglas, Effingham, Ford, Fulton, Grundy, Henry, Iroquois, Jackson, Jo Daviess. Knox, LaSalle, Lee, Livingston, Logan. Macon. Macoupin, Madison, McDonough, McLean, Mercer. Monroe, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Piatt, Putnam, Rock Island. Sangamon, St. Clair, Stephenson, Tazewell, Vermilion, Wabash, Warren, Will. All Others The income of Illinois AFDC families is well below the Federal "Poverty Line." Consider how a family of four with housing expenses of $260 can manage in 1981 on $183 worth of food stamps and $108 for ALL OTHER expenses! Real spendable income of AFDC families has dropped 50% in the last six years (see chart on page 8); the grant plus food stamp bonus has risen only 35% in a period when the cost of living has risen about 70%! General Assistance General Assistance is financed entirely by PROGRAM Istate and local governments for people who are ineligible for the federally-aided categories discussed. Usually these people fall into one of the following groups: a. low-skilled individuals unemployed and ineligible for AFDC or for unemployment benefits b. persons in poor health but not technically disabled c. mentally or emotionally ill persons d. people waiting to be declared eligible for AFDC or SSI e. a few large families headed by men with very low wages. which must be supplemented up to the welfare standard. In addition. a General Assistance recipient is entitled to approximately $70 worth of food stamps each month. bringing total income to about $253.68. If we compare these figures with the actual cost of necessities in the cities of Illinois, can we realistically expect anyone to live on this amount? How, then, do we expect him or her to obtain a livelihood? Are we forcing people into criminal or illegal activities because of our unwillingness to provide a reasonable grant? General Assistance recipients, like recipients of the other programs, receive entitlement cards which they may use to obtain medical care. However, many medical expenses are not covered. Most dental and optometric needs are not met. Thus the General Assistance medical program in effect promotes the worsening of health until much larger medical bills must be paid for more serious conditions. (By that time. the State apparently reasons. the recipient will be eligible for a program where the Federal Government will pay at least half of the bill.) Out of the 52 years that I have lived on this earth, 25 of those years were spent working, paying taxes, doing In my case, the State has been of no assistance in helping me to attain either an adequate grant or dequate As for the necessities of life, my grant at the present time is $193.36 plus $52.00 in food stamps. Out of this -statement by Elizabeth Adkins. recipient living on Chicago's South Side. January, 1980 |