-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/9059b10fda051fdea85714c0c1e234c4.pdf
4da8c7a09188573a3f7e5560b55bc10c
PDF Text
Text
I
The Voice ofCbildNutrition
AMERICAN SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE ASSOCIATION
I
January 21, 1998
Mr. Bruce Reed
Director, Domestic Policy Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Reed:
Since federal child nutrition programs will be authorized in the coming year, I am
.
I
writing to urge that the administration support Meals for tchievement and include funding
for it in the budget.
i
Meals for Achievement has been introduced in both the House (H.R. 3086) and the
I
Senate (S. 1396). It would provide a school breakfast at no charge to all elementary
children.
I
The link between breakfast and' readiness to learh is well established by research
and pilot programs in schools. For example, a study by Dr. Alan Meyers a Boston
pediatrician, a study by Harvard University at 3 schools ir Philadelphia and Baltimore and
pilot programs at six schools in Minnesota all showed that students who eat school
I
breakfast:
• Demonstrate improved classrobm performance regardless of
I
socioeconomic status
• Have better attendance and punctuality records
• Display fewer behavior problemsi
&-. Visit the-school nurse less often
I
A great deal of effort is being devoted to improvin~ education outcomes
for America's children. I urge the President to support and fund Meals for Achievement in
I
the budget as an integral component of his education initiatives.
Sincerely,
Phyll.' Griffith, R.D.
Vice resident, ASFSA
1600 Duke Street, 7th Floor
(800) 877-8822
(703) 739-3900
*
* Alexandria, Vkginia22314-3436
* FAX (703) 739 3915 * www.asfsa.org
1
I
I
�I
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
~i
Summer Food Servicb Pro
)
I
I
.
I
I
Summer Food Reauthorization:
I
Issues and Priorities
I
I
I
,
I
A Special Report froml the
California Sponsor Rounatable
I
'N
and 'ty
Ca1'£orrua- evad a C ommunt A·ctil. on As···
1
soclation
. December 1997 I
I
I
�1\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
"
Table of Contents
Table of Contents_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--+__________---.,;i
Acknowledgements
ii
ExecutiveSummary____________~------------1
Introduction:
Summer Food Service Program'-_ _....;.I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3
Summer Food Reauthorization
I
!.
3
The California Sponsor Roundtable
4
How this report was compiled
4
Top Priorities:
1. Flat Rate Reimbursement _-----,_.:...;..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _6
..._
2. Expand Offer-Versus-Serve
3. Reduce Site Eligibility Requirements·
8
10
4. Streamlined Application for Renewal
12
5. Restored Reimbursement Rate
13
Secondary Issues:
Site Visit and Review Requirement Changes,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _14
Eliminating Site Restrictions for Private! Non.;.Profits.:...;..._ _ _ _ _14
i.
15
Allowing Food Off-Site
I
Increasing Allowance for Second Meals,-+:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15
Realistic Administrative Costs_____i~---------_15
Changes to Training Requirements,___f - - - - - - - - - - - 1 5
Eliminate Redundant Requirements
16
Other Ideas
17
18
Closing Note
�Acknowledgements
The following contributed to this report through parpcipating in the Roundtable
I
Meetings and! or submitting written comments:
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summer Food Sponsors
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cucamonga School DistJict, San Bernardino County
College of the Siskiyous~ Siskiyou County
Compton Unified Schoo\ District, ,Los Angeles County
Tulare County Office of Education
Mt. Diablo Unified Scho~l District, Contra Costa County
Riverside Unified School District, Riverside County
USC Educational Opportunity Programs Center, Los
Angeles County
I
Boys & Girls Club of LaKe Tahoe, El Dorado County
Denise Darling
Fillmore Unified School ~District, Ventura County
Glenda Dejarnette
Community Action Age*cy of Butte County
Karen Fukushima
Colton Unified School District, San Bernardino County
Rennie A. Garza
Gwendolyn Haynes Creative Learning Instittfte, Inc., Los Angeles County
Sacramento Area Emergency Housing, Sacramento
Bonnie H yer
I
County
i
Fresno County Economif Opportunity Commission
Gary Joseph
Katherine Lombardo San Rafael City Schools, ~Marin County
Fredrick D. McCray City of Fresno, Parks and Recreation, Fresno County .
City of SouthGate, Los .tj\ngeles County
Dodie Mosby
City of San Bernardino, Los Angeles County
Oscar Perrier
Manila Community Serv!ices Department, Humboldt
Beverly Prosser
County
I
.
City of Montebello, Recr~ation & Community Services,
Rebecca Silva
Los Angeles County
j
Turlock Joint Union High School, Stanislaus County
Scott Soiseth
New Haven Unified Schbol District, Alameda County
Arlene Yamada
Jennell K. Acker
Gerald L. Bryant
Tommie Callegari
Jose Calvo
Karen Candito
Peter Chargualaf
Jeffrey L. Clayton
Program AdvocJes
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sharon Eghigian
Ken Goldstein
Annette Jewell
Minette Marcelli
Dawn Roberts
Matthew Sharp
Amy Sullivan
Sally Yoshida
California-Nevada ComJmnity Action Association
California-Nevada Corruhunity Action Association
Orange County Commuftity Development Commission
University of California ;Cooperative Extension, Fresno
California Food Policy Advocates
California Food Policy Advocates
Orange County Commupity Development Commission
University of ~lifornia ooperative Extension, Fresno
C,
II
�..
,
I
Cal-Neva and the California Sponsor Roundtable wtld also like to gratefully
acknowledge the, following for providing space for the Roundtable Meetings to take
place:'
I '
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Nonprofit Resource Center, Sacramento Central Library
• Orange County Community Development C6mmission
• University of California Cooperative Extensio~, Fresno County
I
!
!
California-Nevada Community Action Association's lork on this project was made
possible by the California Department of CommunitY Services & Development
through a Federal Community Food and Nutrition Program grant.
Additional copies of this report are available from the California-Nevada
I
Community Action Association:
Cal-Neva CAA
Attn: Ken Goldstein
225 30th Street, #200
Sacramento, CA 95816
916-443-1721
916-325-2549 fax
kgoldstein@cal-neva.org
http://www.cal-neva.org
i~
You are free to reproduce the information contained this report, without the
publishers permission, with appropriate citation given to the California-Nevada
Community Action Association and the California SP?nsor Roundtable.
'I
I
I
I
iii
�I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summary
I
In 1968 Congress created the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) as a means of
continuing the nutritional benefits of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
during those months when school was out of session~ and school lunches were not
available. For the past thirty years, SFSP has fed millfons of children who would
otherwise have gone without adequate nutrition during the summer months.
I
.
.
I
The Summer F90d Service Program must be re-authorized by Congress periodically,
as a component of the Child' Nutrition Program Rea~thorization. 1998 will be a
reauthorization year. Reauthorization presents Conglj'ess with the opportunity to
review the rules and regulations that govern the SUn1mer Food Service Program, and
to make appropriate changes. .
j
!
During the reauthorization process Congress will als0 review ideas and suggestions
for changes to the child nutrition programs. These suggestions will come from a
variety of sources: the USDA, the State agencies that administer the programs,
I
children's advocates, and program sponsors.
In October, 1997, the California-Nevada Community Action Association, in
conjunction with the California Sponsor Roundtable, began soliciting ideas for
reauthorization. Twenty suggestions for changes to the regulations were compiled in
I
this way.
The task of prioritizing these ideas was accomPlished\through three regional Sponsor
Roundtable meetings held in November, 1997. At eac~ meeting Summer Food
Program sponsors debated the pros and cons of each df the ideas in detail. Each
Roundtable member was then asked to identify their top three priorities.
I
The top priorities for change identified by the Roundt~ble were:
I
1. Flat Rate Reimbursement
I
A single reimbursement rate should be e~tablished that combines
administrative and operating costs. This'i'vill be the rate paid for all
qualified meals served, regardless of actual costs incurred.
I
.
I
2. Expand Offer-Versus-Serve
'
Allow all sponsors the option of using "Qffer-Versus-Serve" as in the
National School Lunch Program. A meal 'will be reimbursable if the
child accepts three of the five componentS offered.
3. Reduce Site Eligibility Requirements
I
Reduce the eligibility requirement for open site" programs from 50%
of population below 185% of poverty levJI to 40%.
II
1
�I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
.
4. Streamlined Application for Renewal
For agencies that have previously partisipated in SFSP or NSLP an
abbreviated application process should ibe established consisting of a
letter of intent, a listing of sites, and any changes to the initial
application.
5. Restored Reimbursement Rate
Restore cuts to the reimbursement rate contained in the Personal
Responsibility and Work OpportUnities \Reconciliation Act of 1996
(Welfare Reform), adjusted for. inflationl
Seven areas identified as secondary priorities for
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c~ge were:
Site Visit and Review Requireme~t Changes
Eliminating Site Restrictions for Private Non-Profits
1
Allowing Food Off-Site
Increasing Allowance for Second Meals
Realistic Administrative Costs I
Changes in Training Requirements
Eliminating Redundant Requirerrtents
I
I
This final Roundtable report will be presented torepr~sentatives of appropriate State
and ,Federal agencies, members of Congress, and the Office of the President as the
official recommendations of the California Sponsor Rbundtable.
I
2
�I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
Summer Food Service Program
-
I
In 1968 Congress created the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) as a means of
continuing the nutritional benefits of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
during those months when school was out of session) and school lunches were not
available.
\
i
The program is Federally funded, through the U.s. D~partment of Agriculture
(USDA), but administered by the individual states. Cfllifornia, like most states,
administers SFSP through their Department of Education. Individual program
sponsors are community based public or private non~profit agencies, who apply
through the Department of Education for reimburse~ent for eligible meals.
I
income. IThe
SFSP sites are qualified by the neighborhood
most common way to
qualify a site is to verify with the nearest school that ~t least fifty percent of their
students qualify for free.or reduced-price schoolluncltes. Once the site is qualified, all
children in that neighborhood may receive free lunch~s during the summer, or other
off-track periods.
For the past thirty years, SFSP has fed millions of children who would otherwise .
have,gone without adequate nutrition during the sum'mer months. Study after study
has shown that when proper nutritipn is not maintain~d during this period, the first
month of school is spent simply trying to catch up to ~here students were when
school let out the previous June.
I
I
Children who have maintained good nutrition, howe~er, arrive in September ready
to learn. Children who are ready and able to learn, in turn, go on to become
productive adults. As such, Summer Food and the oth~r child nutrition programs are
far more than simply a food distribution program. Th~se progra~ playa key role in
fighting the cycle of poverty and building our nation' ~ future.
.
I
I
Summer Food Reauthorization
i
�II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
During the reauthorization process Congress will also review ideas and suggestions
for changes to the child nutrition programs. These suggestions will come from a
variety of sources: the USDA, the State agencies that ladminister the programs,
children's advocates, and program sponsors.
i
.
I
This report, by the California Sponsor Roundtable iI) conjunction with the CaliforniaNevada Community Action Association, puts together the recommendations of SFSP
sponsors from throughout the Golden State. The ide~s contained within these pages
come from the people who have the experience of ruiming SFSP in their
communities, those who have gone the extra mile to ~ake sure that children have
access to good, nutritious, free meals when school is put of session.
I
I
The California Sponsor Roundtable
The California-Nevada Community Action Associati6n (Cal-Neva) is a private non
profit agency that does year-round outreach, educatio'n, and technical assistance on
the Summer Food Service'Program. In addition to th~ir other activities, which
include an annual SFSP conference, Cal-Neva has periodically convened sponsor
roundtable meetings to get sponsor input on special problems or projects.
I
}
I
In 1997, with the challenge of Welfare Reform increas\ng the demand for food
programs, the concurrent cutting of SFSP reimbursement rates, and the coming
opportunity of program reauthorization, it was deterrhined that a more formal
Sponsor Roundtable would be necessary to ensure thc1t the sponsors voices would be
l
a part of any future changes to the program.
'l
I
I
Cal-Neva presented the idea to all 276 sponsors withiri. the state. Thirty-six sponsors
volunteered to be a part of this new California Sponsqr Roundtable. Coming
together to create the recommendations contained in tftis report is seen as only the
beginning for the Roundtable.
I
The California Sponsor Roundtable is now a standing ~ommittee of sponsors
committed to the future of the Summer Food Service Ijrogram. The Roundtable is
determined to continue meeting, even after reauthorization, to assist each other and
to be a catalyst for change.
. .
I.
I
!
How this report was compiled
In October, 1997, a Reauthorization Survey was sent to !the 36 Califor~a SFSP
Sponsors who had indicated an interest in being part of the Sponsor Roundtable. This
survey included four ideas for changes to the program,land asked for comments on
these, as well as additional ideas from the sponsor. Thrpugh the written input of the
I
surveys, the four ideas became sixteen.
4
I
I
I
�I'
I
I
I
I
I
"I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The task of prioritizing these ideas was accomplishe~ through the Roundtable
meetings. Three regional meetings were arranged, and invitations sent to the same 36
sponsors. The meetings were held in Sacramento, G~rden Grove (Orange County),
and Fresno over the first two weeks of November. ~en Goldstein, of the CaliforniaNevada Community Acti'on Association facilitated the meetings.
I
I
At each meeting sponsors debated the pros and cons bf each of the ideas in detail. The
sixteen ideas grew to twenty ideas. Suggestions were combined into like areas as a
consensus began to develop within each group. Each\roundtable member was then
asked to identify their top three priorities. Several ropndtable members who were
unable to attend the meetings were allowed to subm~t their priorities by fax.
I
Each person's top priority was given three points. Sec!:ond priorities were given two
points, and third priorities were given one point. Th~ ranking of priorities in this
report is based on these point totals. While child nutrition advocates took part in the
roundtable discussions, only program sponsors voted on the priorities.
.
\
This report combines the results of each of the three groups priorities with the
written comments received from the surveys. It is arr4nged in three sections. The first
section details the five items that emerged as clear priorities for the group. The
second section contains items that received votes by sbme members, but were not top
priorities for any. The final section summarizes the other issues raised by the
reauthorization survey.
I
The final report was written by Ken Goldstein, of Cal-~eva, but the voices heard
within it are those of the sponsors. .
I.
I
5
�I
Top Priorities
1 - Flat Rate Reimbursement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
Proposal - A single reimbursement rate should ibe established that combines
administrative and operating costs. This w:ill be the rate paid for all
qualified meals served, regardless of actuaf costs incurred.
Current System:
Under current regulations the reimbursement rate is Ibroken down into two
components, Administrative Costs and Operating Cdsts. The combined rates make up
the maximum reimbursement per qualified meal serfed.
Sponsors track their actual costs in each category (adbinistrative and operating).
These figures are compared to the official reimbursement rate and sponsors are then
reimbursed for the lower amount (actual vs. rate). \ \
'
Problems:
In practice, actual costs usually exceed the reimburserpent rates, and the maximum set
rate is paid. Only rarely are the actual costs lower, and therefore paid to the sponsor.
The administrative rate in particular is widelY'acknoJrledged by sponsors to be about
half of what sponsors actually spend.
I
The two-rate system leads to a lack of flexibility in th~ sponsors negotiations with
food venders. Sponsors come from all sorts of public ~nd private non-profit agencies
- school districts, Boys and Girls Clubs, churches, su~er camps, etc. - each with
different administrative and operational consideratioris. Some may have more
flexibility when it comes to volunteer versus paid staff. Others may have more
flexibility when it comes to food costs. The reimbursetnent rate should reflect that.
The two-rate system creates more paperwork than necbssary to administer SFSP for
sponsors. The amount of paperwork sponsors must go; throug~ is a common
complaint and has led to sponsors leaving the progr~, and often discourages
potential sponsors from entering the program.
!
I
Many SFSP sponsors (such as school districts) are invo~ved in other child nutrition
programs as well. Most of these other programs utilize the flat rate' system, and know
first hand how much time it saves. One school district ~ponsor commented that it
takes her twice as long to do the claim for reimbursem~nt for the $60,000 she receives
I
.
.
for SFSP as it takes for the $600,000 she receives for thel school lunch program.
6
./
I
I
�I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Confusion over what cost category certain items fall !into leads to budgeting
problems which can delay the start of a summer program. These problems recur
again at the end of the summer when claims for reim;bursement are returned to the
sponsor to have items put into the correct category, f~rther delaying payment.
\
Summer Food Service Program sponsors are, by definition, non-profit organizations.
Any delay in payments caused by purely bureaucratif considerations can seriously
impede the organization's ability to perform in other\ program areas.
I
I
I
,
Advantages to Flat Rate Reimbursement:
• Flexibility - Sponsors who are able to save on 9perating costs (through self
prep of meals) could hire more staff (an administrative cost). Sponsors who are
I
able to secure volunteers for staff could spend more on food.
I
• Less Bureaucracy - Filling out the 'claim for reidtbursement can be a
complicated process. Many sponsors, even exp~rienced ones, have questions
on which cost category some items fall into. Combining the rates will
eliminate these questions and speed up the paplerwork and reimbursement
process.
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Simplified Budgeting - Eliminating questions aSi to cost categories would free
sponsors to realistically project actual overall costs.
I
• Simplified Claims - "Meals times rate" would s*eed up filling out the claim
for reimbursement, and receipt of the payment. ~ponsors would still have to
maintain proper accounting of actual costs for auditing purposes.
programsl-
The flat rate, based on
• Conformity with other child nutrition
number of meals served, is used in National Sch?ol Lunch Program (NSLP),
the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFf)' and others.
I
I.
I
I
I
7
�I:
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
2 - Expand Offer-Versus-Serve
Proposal - Allow all sponsors the option of usi~g Offer-Versus-Serve" as in the
National School Lunch Program. A meal will be reimbursable if the child
accepts three of the five components offere1d.
1/
I
I
Current System:
schoollu~ch
Summer Food Service Program meals (and
meals, etc.) are broken into
required components - meat, grain, fruit, vegetable, ~nd milk - with a specified
minimum amount of food from each group. For a meal to be reimbursable, all
components of a meal must be served to every child. \
Under the National School Lunch Program, school ca(eterias that choose to use the
"0ffer-Versus-Serve" system (OVS), only need to ma~e each component available. If
the child selects at least three of the five components,! the meal may be reimbursed.
I
i
Schools that utilize OVS during the regular school ye~r, and are also SFSP sponsors,
may utilize OVS during the summer. Other Summer Food Sponsors must serve the
entire meal as a single unit in order to receive reimb~rsement.
Problems:
Food waste is the primary concern when children are required to take food that they
have no intention of eating. Wasted food is also wastea money which could be spent
increasing the quality or serving size of the more popular components.
I
I
I
The milk component is a particularly troubling requir~ment. Special milk for lactose
intolerant children is more expensive for sponsors wh~ are already strapped to keep
costs within the reimbursement rate. Lactose intolerance is very high among many
non-white populations, particularly American Indians. IThis puts Tribal sponsors at a
, cost disadvantage to provide the milk component.
I
I
As word of the cost efficiencies of OVS has spread thro~gh the school food service
community, more and more schools have switched over. All SFSP sponsors are non
profit organizations and are in need Q! any tool to hel~ increase cost effectiveness. It
is unfair to deny the majority of them use of a toql that l has been shown to work for
others.
.
1
I
I
8
�I
I
I,
I,
,
Advantages to Offer-Versus-Serve: ,
\
I
.wh~t th~y
I
I
• Children are more likely to consume
choose - The child may be
required to put the vegetables on the plate, brtt no sponsor can force a child to
eat something against the child's will. Allowihg a choice helps to teach the
child responsibility.
I
I
• Less food waste - The unchosen food most oft~n winds up in the trash. This is a
very poor lesson to be teaching children. Tea~hing conservation of resources
should be part of any nutrition program.
\
I
• Lower food cost and increased progr~m effici~ncy - School sites with OVS have
found that food costs were cut by as much as ten to fifteen percent.
I
I
I
.
I
• No forced milk on the lactose intolerant - Chil:cIren who are unable to digest
milk products are spared the stomach aches (or worse) that are usually the
I
result.
\
• Treats all sponsors equally - All tools to increase efficiency and cost
effectiveness should be available to all SPOns01!S, not just a' single class of
sponsor (ie: school districts).
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
,I
9
�I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 - Reduce Site Eligibility Requirements
\
I
Proposal - Reduce the eligibility requirement f~r "open site" programs from
50% of population below 185% of poverty \level to 40%.
I
Current System:
I
A Summer Food "open site" is one where all neighbLhOOd children are allowed to
eat free, without having to first certify family incomJ. Open sites are allowed when
the sponsor documents that the area in question has ~t least 50 percent of families
living at or below 185 percent of the established pov~rty level. This is most often
documented using school lunch eligibility data from \the nearest school.
I
'
When the Summer Food Service Program was initiall:y authorized, the open site
requirement was 33-1/3 percent of population below \185 percent of poverty level.
The requirement was raised to 50 percent to prevent qhildren who do not "need"
Summer Food from participating in the program.
I
I
I
"Enrolled sites" are possible in areas that do not meet the established criteria. At
enrolled sites the family of each participating child m:ust individually document their
income. This system further builds the stigma that is 9ften attached to being a food
program beneficiary, and creates a barrier to program participation.
I
I
I
i
Problems:
I,
I
I
.'
I
I
I,
I'
I
I
I
Time and time again a sponsor would like to open a SfSP site near a large school site
in a poor area only to discover thatonly 45 percent of Ithe school qualifies. With a,
school of 1,000 children that is 450 children who are inl need of the SFSP, but will not
be able to participate.
\
What sponsors have discovered is that children whosei families are above 185 percent
of poverty level are not likely to participate in the program, even when located
nearby. In the example above, the SFSP site, if allowedl to open, would probably only
attract children from the 450 who are eligible, not frorr). 650 who are not.
I
The Summer Food Service Program is authorized as aJ entitlement program,
meaning that all eligible children may participate. Thei50 percent site requirement
denies participation to many eligible children from low-income families.
I
Of,th~
w~ll
The enrolled site option is rarely utilized because
stigma attached to it, as
as the added administrative burden for the sponsor to ~ollect the required income
I
verification from each participating family.
10
\
I
I
I
I
i
�I'
I,
I
I
,I
I'
,t
I'
'I
I,
i
I
!
Additionally, the official poverty statistics often do hot tell the entire story.
Kindergarten children usually only attend a half-day of school and rarely eat school
lunch. They, therefore, are not included in the countl Neither are many high school
students who choose not to accept a free school lunch due to the stigma of the
program. Actual poverty rates are often higher than Ischool lunch data would have
one believe. This leaves unserved many areas that by all rights should qualify.
!
I
"!
co~unity
• Enrolled sites could open their doors to the
- The conversion of
many enrolled sites to open site status would help diminish the stigma of
program participation encouraging more childlren to participate. The lessened
administrative burden would encourage more !sponsors to enter the program.
I
I'
I
,I
I
il
I
I
I
II
'
Advantages to Reducing the Site Eligibility Requirements:
!
I
• More eligible children would be able to participate - The, purpose of SFSP is to
bring continued good nutrition to low-income: children when school lunches
are not available. Reducing the site eligibility 'I requirement would allow more
sites to be established, making meals available to more hungry children.
11
�I,'
,I;
I'
'I
4 - Streamlined Application for Renewal
I
Proposal- For agencies that have previously patticipated in SFSP or NSLP an
abbreviated application process should be iestablished consisting of a letter
of intent, a listing of sites, and any change~ to the initial application.
Administering state authorities and the USpA would have the option to
require full applications from agencies that have had findingsll against
them in previous site reviews.
I
.
II
I
,
Current System:
The application process to become a Summer Food S~rvice Program sponsor can be
an extremely challenging and time consuming ordeal. Some examples of the kind of
, information collected include organizational charts, management plans, and copies of
audits. Much, if not most, of this information remairulI the same from one year to
.
.
another.
' I
.
I
Sponsoring agencies must go through the entire application process each year,
duplicating efforts, and wasting time and money. The! amount of bureaucracy and
paperwork involved in SFSP is often cited as a main r~ason why sponsors leave the
program. That paperwork maze begins with the appl~cation.
I
Other Federal assistance programs (such as the Homeless Children Nutrition
Program) allow continuing sponsors to reapply through a letter of intent only.
I
I
Problems:
.
I
The paperwork burden, and the administrative cost inl processing it, creates a barrier
for agencies wishing to sponsor SFSP. It has caused some sponsors to leave the
program and convinced others not to enter it at alL I
I
I
Advantages to Streamlining the Renewal Application: I
I
!
• Less bureaucracy means more sponsors - Easing' the paperwork burden on
sponsors would encourage more of them to re~ain in the program, feeding
more children. Less bureaucracy would also enc,ourage more potential
sponsors to start-up Summer Food sites.
1
I
i
• Lower administrative costs and greater efficiency - Eliminating duplicative
efforts conserves an agency's resources and allows them to focus on other
• ••
I
priorities.
12
�1,,I
I'
'1\
,I
:
5 - Restored Reimbursement Rate
I
1
Proposal - Restore cuts to the reimbursement rate contained in the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare
Reform), adjusted for inflation. Future cost-of-living increases to be built
into the reauthorization legislation.
I
I
Current System:
I
I
The welfare reform law of 1996 cut the reimburseme~t for SFSP lunches by $0.1475,
breakfast and snack rates were similarly cut. Inflatio~ary adjustments, made each
I
January 1, remained in the law.
II
Problems:
'I
,I'
I'
I
I
Ii
t
I
I
I
nearly Ififteen
In the summer of 1997 SFSP sponsors received
cents less for each lunch
served than they did in the summer of 1996. To make Iends meet, many had to cut the
quantity and the quality of meals served. Menus contained fewer healthful items, and
relied on less expensive meats, such as bologna, that ke higher in fat and sodium.
. ;
i
Many sponsors decided against re-applying for the s~mmer of 1997 because of the
cuts to reimbursement rates. Others did serve, but los,t money and may not return for
the summer of 1998. Other sponsors reduced their number of meal sites or served
lunch only, instead of lunch and a snack.
.1
The lower rates forced many sponsors to consolidate many sites into fewer, larger
sites. During the summer of 1997 more children were served than in 1996, but at
fewer sites. While this economy of sites works for ur~an areas, it leaves many rural
areas unable to afford SFSP participation, reducing acbess to the program.
I
I
,
The full effect won't be known until applications for the summer of 1998 are
submitted - or fail to be submitted, as the case may bel The purpose of welfare reform
was to teach responsibility and reform a bloated bure~ucracy, not to add to hunger.
I
Advantages to Restoring the Reimbursement Rate:'
i
I
i
I
• More sponsors and sites - Many sponsors woulq be encouraged to re-enter the .
program. More sites means more children will have access to nutritious meals.
I
• Better food quality - Sponsors can reduce their dependence "junk meats" and
concentra'te on good nutrition. Nutritious snacIJ would also be increased.
"
I
I,
I
13
\
!
�I'
:
V'
,I
Ii
Secondary Issues
,.
,
'I
:
I
The following suggestions were identified by the Roundtables to be secondary
priorities for certain sponsors:
I,
'I
I
I
I
I'
I'
I'
I
,I
1\
,I
1\
I"
I,
Eliminate Site Restrictions for Private Non-Profits
I
Currently, private non-profit sponsors are limited to ~ponsoring only twenty sites,
with a maximum of five urban sites. Originally, priv~te non-profits were allowed the
same freedom of site selection as public agencies. Ch~nges to the program in the
1980's first eliminated all private sponsors, then allow;ed them back into the program,
but with these added restrictions. .
I
These rules severely hamper the efforts of sponsors inllarge urban areas. Many
waivers to the site limit rule have been issued to private non':'profits who have
several years experience with SFSP without any probl~ms. It is time to eliminate the
additional restrictions and treat all sponsors alike, pu~lic or private.
14
�Il'
I,
II
."
'I
Ii
I
il
t·
II
I'
I'
·1
I
,I
1\
,I,
,I'
'I'
I
:
I
Allowing Food Off-Site
Currently, for a meal to be reimbursable, it must be\eaten entirely on-site. No food
mp.y be reimbursed if the children take it home with them. As originally authorized
in 1968, children could take meals to be eaten off-sit~. The rules were changed to
prevent children from delivering full meals to adult\'.
I
Many small children have trouble eating the entire meal at one sitting, and would
like to take their apple, or juice, or cookie home wit~ them. Current rules do not
allow this, and left-over food is thrown away instead.
\
Many SFSP sites are at public parks where it is diffic~lt to confine children to one
small area, but if they leave the area with food the meal is not reimbursable.
.
I
Allowing partial ~eals ("leftovers") to be taken off-~ite would decrease food waste,
while still maintaining the integrity of a children's riutrition program.
1
I
Increasing Allowance for Second Meals
I
Currently, a sponsor may serve "seconds" to only ~o percent of participating
children. Many older children and teenagers need a larger meal to be satisfied.
I
Sponsors should be reimbursed for second meals serVed to up to ten percent of
participating children.
1
Realistic Administrative Costs
I
The administrative costs rate is widely recognized b~ sponsors to be approximately
half of what sponsors actually spend on administratiqn. Sponsors use funds from
other programs in order to continue serving Summer, Food meals.
I
The administrative costs reimbursement rate should be doubled to more closely
reflect sponsors actual costs.
'
Changes to Training Requirements
Each summer sponsors are required to train their entire staff. Many sponsors who
have been a part of SFSP for several years with the saine staff find this requirement to
be a waste of time and resources.
\
Sponsors should be allowed the option of deciding how much "refresher" training
their experienced staff members need. All new staff wiould still be required to go
through full training.
I
15
�,.'I
I
III,
'I,
I
:1
,
'
I
I
.
Eliminate Redundant Requirements
The rules and regulations governing the Summer Fqod Service Program contain
many items that are duplicative, inefficient, or simp~y have no meaning. Some
examples of this type of regulatory mess include: '
• Information should be more important than the format - Sponsors are
required to keep a daily count of meals serve~. Small, single site sponsors,
who have used a weekly count form, with daily information, have been told
by monitors to use a separate sheet for each d~y. This type of "form over
substance" rule making wastes sponsors' scar~e resources. ,
• Why collect information that is not to be used? - Sponsors are required to
collect a beneficiary tally by ethnicity. This tally is done by sight, and is not
very accurate information. It is then filed in alnotebook in the sponsors office
and never collected or used by USDA or. any State agency. It is bureaucracy for
bureaucracy's sake.
I
'
I
Ii
• Information that already exists should not be ~uplicated - School districts who
sponsor SFSP are made to repeat many procedures that they have already
completed for the National School Lunch ProSt-am, including: making a pre
operational budget, the pre-operational State visit, and arranging a local Board
I
of Health inspection.'
1\
I,
• Requirements that have no meaning - All SFSP sponsors are required to notify
local media of their sites. Enrolled sites, such ~s camps, are not exemptfrom
this requirement. To meet the requirement, brlt not attract children they cannot
serve, enrolled sites send out a press release ~ith the heading, "Please do not
print this."
i
\,
'
a
All duplicative, inefficient, or meaningless regulations should be excised from SFSP.
,I
,I
,I,
,I
'I
I
16
�''IIJ'
,I
II
,I
1\
IJ
'I
':-j
II
I
I
l
Other Ideas
I
I
The following suggestions were submitted by Sunuher Food Sponsors through the
initial Reauthorization Surveys, but did not receive ~ny votes to be included as
Roundtable Priorities or Secondary Issues. They arelstill good ideas, however, and
help to demonstrate the types of problems that Sunimer Food sponsors encounter.
I
I
• Start-up Grants, funded by USDA, should onde again be available to sponsors
. new or expand'
I
WIth
mg programs.
I
,
\
• In states where SFSP is administered by a DeRartment of Education, that
department should supply a list of schools th~t meet the eligibility
requirements, rather than put that burden onto potential sponsors.
I t ' t'
···
• Sponsors w h 0 partiCIpate m mu1'1e programs mus mam am separate
tip
receipts for each. For example, to keep these r~ceipts accurate the sponsor\must
order milk separately for SFSP and the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP). Once a sponsor's food budget is approved by the State administering
agency, the sponsor should be able to maintaih a single record of all food
purchases, and assign a percentage to each prclgram.
• The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Nltional School Lunch Program
(NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), and the Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP) should be merged into a sihgle seamless Childhood
Nutrition Program, with a single application and reimbursement process.
I
i
I)
,
,I
I
\I~
,1\
"I
II
17
�II~
I'
·1
!I
'I:
I:
\
....
·1
'I
I
I
I'
",'
.
/
Closing Note
,
For thirty years the Summer Food Service Program has helped to bring year-round
nutrition to low-income children across America ..
1
Sponsors are involved in this program because theyi believe in the importance of this
mission. Many, if not most, lose money on this program, but they continue to
sponsor SFSP sites because the children need it.
i
The California Sponsor Roundtable has come toget~er to make these
recommendations to the program regulations because they care about the Summer
Food Service Program, and want to guarantee its' coptinued success.
I
The priorities and issues raised in this report come from the front lines in the battle
against childhood hunger. These recommendations tepresent the voice of experience.
The California Sponsor Roundtable will work
priorities for Summer Food Reauthorization.
e.
'/
I
·1
'I
I.
:1'
'I
I
18
thrOU~hout 1998 to promote these
I·
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Kendra Brooks - Correspondence Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36029" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/648008" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Description
An account of the resource
The Kendra Brooks correspondence files include inbound and outbound correspondence pertaining to class-size reduction, the School Construction Initiative, the America Reads program, and Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. The files contain letters, memoranda, emails, and background articles.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
21 folders in 1 box
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Food Service Programs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Kendra Brooks
Correspondence
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 17
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/KendraBrooksCorrespondence.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/648008" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/17/2012
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
648008-food-service-programs
648008