Congressional plans for nutritional aid programs may be turning around the lives of low-income children-for the worse. Last Friday, Republican members of the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities proposed to repeal the National Sch ool Lunch Act of 1946 and the Children Nutrition Act of 1966. The funds for these programs, which provide breakfasts and lunches for over 25 million schoolchildren across the country, would be replaced by block grants to states for general assistance to t hose requiring assistance.
This Republican-led initiative has decent aims. The purpose of the proposal is to reduce the paperwork burdening local officials. More importantly, block or lump-sum grants could empower states to adjust their resources to tailor a program that feeds more people at a lower cost. The proposal rests on the premise that states know best when it comes down to their people and their pocket.
But this is the proposal at its limited best.
Given the power to allocate funds that would be granted to states, what is more likely to happen if this proposal is enacted is something much worse.
The overarching problem with the proposal is that it gives states too much latitude to address issues facing low-income families and children. If block grants are enacted for general assistance to low-income people as proposed, there is no guarantee that low-income children will receive school lunches, or that any schoolchildren, for that matter, will get federally-funded breakfasts and lunches in school. Since states would only be required to file an annual report detailing how the funds were spent, they would not be under any obligation to continue the meal program that was established nearly 50 years ago. This is especially unfortunate given that the 10 million children served school meals are so poor that they receive them free every day.
The proposal also does not compel those states that do implement a more cost-efficient school lunch program to meet any sort of uniform, national nutritional standard. It is ironic that the proposal fails to ensure this, since the 1946 National School Lunch Act was passed in response to the government's discovery that many of its military recruits were malnourished. Interestingly, in 1981, the Reagan Administration proposed to permit national nutritional standards to include pickle relish and ketchup as vegetable servings. But not to worry that the states would spark the uproar that that plan did! An aide to the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities said last Friday in The New York Times, "We trust the states. No sch ool will serve hot dogs and potato chips every day."
In addition, there is no guarantee that the block grants can be shaped according to the pressing social and economic constraints of the time. For 1996, the federal government would grant $6.5 billion to the states and allow for a maximum annual increa se in the amount of 4.5 percent. Whether these projections for 1996 and future years will be sufficient to address population growth and changing food supplies is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the nature of this set allotment may not be fle xible enough to guarantee people what they currently receive by law.
Furthermore, low-income schoolchildren could be disproportionately jeopardized by the proposal. In addition to not obligating states to a lunch program, the state can define "low-income" as they wish, as long as it is not more than 85 percen t of the poverty level. The states which increase the number of meals served over the next five years will be rewarded with greater funding. What could result is the shift of funds from needier areas to more affluent ones, Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Robert Greenstein said last Friday in The New York Times.
For millions of Americans, it seems that the two words that best characterize the Gingrich-led, Republican proposal are: no guarantee. The plan to replace school lunch programs with block grants may give states the freedom to address their low-income residents.
However, it relies too heavily on the good faith of the states. The proposal creates the possibility that over 25 million schoolchildren will go without school meals every day, and for young, growing children, this change may be more than they can swa llow.
Jane Yoon is a sophomore in Berkeley College.