"June 21, 2012 - According to a new report released today, over 2 million (84 percent) of the children in California who benefitted from federally funded school meals during the academic year were not served by the federal summer meal programs in 2011. The report, School's Out…Who Ate?, authored by California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA), ties the elimination of summer school to the loss of affordable, nutritious meals for low-income children.
CFPA's analysis of data provided by the California Department of Education shows that participation in federal summer meal programs has decreased by over 50 percent in just under a decade. That downward trend is driven largely by a decline in meals served by summer schools. George Manalo- LeClair, CFPA's executive director, notes, "The widespread loss of summer school programs in California undermines student enrichment and academic achievement. That harm is intensified by the loss of summer school meals. Children need year-round access to nutritious meals that combat hunger, support learning, and help prevent obesity."
Beyond children's health and development, the loss of summer meals also impacts the bottom line. As reported by the Food Research and Action Center, in Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation, California missed out on an estimated $34 million in federal funding due to low participation in summer nutrition programs during July of 2011.
School's Out… Who Ate? examines statewide trends in summer meal participation and provides county-level data. The report also offers federal, state, and local policy recommendations aimed at closing the summer nutrition gap, such as:
• A state convening to address deficits in summer nutrition and summer learning
• Required collection and tracking of basic data on summer school and summer programs
• Rigorous outreach to inform families of available summer meal sites
• Research to better understand the availability and impact of summer nutrition resources on children's diets.
Across the state, the federal summer meal programs reach fewer children each year and many families continue to struggle in this tough economy. Policymakers at all levels should take action to mend the widening summer nutrition gap faced by millions of low-income children in California.
For the full report and other resources, visit: http://cfpa.net/sowa-2012. "
The foregoing content was copied from: http://yubanet.com/california/Fewer-Summer-Meals-Served-Across-California-New-Strategies-Needed.php
Comments
Conservatives love to rail against school lunches. I don't get it. If they were really serious about "saving money" they should demand NO cafeteria services in schools.
As it is, every school has cafeteria space, stoves, ovens, refridgerators, supply chains, etc. That's a lot of overhead. So we should utilize it, IMO.
We should let these cafeterias to open at 6:00 am on school days and let EVERYONE have a breakfast. Even if it's just a bowl of cereal and a banana, in aggregate it would probably cost less than everyone buying the food by individual household. I don't think the wages of the cooks and janitors make so much to defeat the cost effectiveness.
We could do the same thing for dinner, but that would entail the cooks staying long after the school day ends, or coming later.
Also, IMO we need to move beyond summer vacations of 8-10 weeks. If we had year-round schools people could eat in the summer, too.
Of course, this would require higher taxes, and that would cut into the gasoline budgets of the clowns in the F-350's.
Where does the federal government get the authority toI implement these stupid programs
"June 21, 2012 - According to a new report released today, over 2 million (84 percent) of the children in California who benefitted from federally funded school meals during the academic year were not served by the federal summer meal programs in 2011. The report, School's Out…Who Ate?, authored by California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA), ties the elimination of summer school to the loss of affordable, nutritious meals for low-income children.
CFPA's analysis of data provided by the California Department of Education shows that participation in federal summer meal programs has decreased by over 50 percent in just under a decade. That downward trend is driven largely by a decline in meals served by summer schools. George Manalo- LeClair, CFPA's executive director, notes, "The widespread loss of summer school programs in California undermines student enrichment and academic achievement. That harm is intensified by the loss of summer school meals. Children need year-round access to nutritious meals that combat hunger, support learning, and help prevent obesity."
Beyond children's health and development, the loss of summer meals also impacts the bottom line. As reported by the Food Research and Action Center, in Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation, California missed out on an estimated $34 million in federal funding due to low participation in summer nutrition programs during July of 2011.
School's Out… Who Ate?
For the full report and other resources, visit: http://cfpa.net/sowa-2012. "
The foregoing content was copied from: http://yubanet.com/california/Fewer-Summer-Meals-Served-Across-California-New-Strategies-Needed.php
What a worthy program for kids. Thanks for bringing up this information.
Based on my reading of the report, it looks like it is state "austerity" ( in the form of fewer summer school programs) not Federal austerity that is behind the reduced participation in the federal free lunch programs. The Fed programs are available to CA kids in summer school, but there are fewer summer school programs. I also think the headline's use of "Denied lunches" is misleading. The report indicates there was $34 million in Fed Free Food money available for meals at school buildings and community centers and the YMACA etc, in 2011 but the kids didn't come to get the meals at any where near the participation rate as when they were already in summer school and could just eat there.
Hey, the govt is just trying to curb childhood obesity!
Where does the federal government get the authority toI implement these stupid programs
I think this falls under pure spending. I don't think there are any restrictions about what a Congress can spend money on. The last Congress authorized x number of dollars on this program, this Congress can authorize x, x+10%, x-10%, maybe even x-100%.
It's not like laws that require some action or prohibit some action. Maybe I'm wrong.
Wrong sir congress is given the power to tax it's enumerated powers it's crap like this that has lead to huge unfounded mandates in this country.
Why should parents have to feed their own kids, that is the government's job! To qualify for these free or reduced meals a family can make 130% of the federal poverty guidelines for free and 185% for reduced. So, a family of 4 can have an income of $41,348 to get reduced pricing. Also, schools have to spend tens of thousands, local school in my area will be spending about $50,000, to purchase point of sale systems that use scan cards or thumb prints to allow children "pay" so none of the other kids or staff may find out that they are receiving this welfare. I can think of better ways to spend $50,000.
Which government agency is getting paid $50k to install the point of sale machine?
it's crap like this that has lead to huge unfounded mandates in this country.
Yes there are unfunded mandates. This particular school lunch program is not a mandate.
It is unconstitutional though. Also it depends how much the attempt is paying for this to consider wether it Is or isn't an unfounded mandate.
Taking food from hungry children isn`t far from sexual abuse.I see these republicans(and masters) as a combination of "nazi & southern confederacy",they will have to make a "new hell" for something this evil.
Where does the federal government get the authority toI implement these stupid programs
It is unconstitutional though. Also it depends how much the attempt is paying for this to consider wether it Is or isn't an unfounded mandate.
It is unconstitutional though.
local school in my area will be spending about $50,000, to purchase point of sale systems that use scan cards or thumb prints to allow children "pay" so none of the other kids or staff may find out that they are receiving this welfare. I can think of better ways to spend $50,000.
Which government agency is getting paid $50k to install the point of sale machine?
No government agency is getting paid $50k to install point of sale machines. Some "well-positioned" vendor/contractor will get that money.
I don't know how much of it is for keeping your wretched welfare street urchins anonymous. At a school local to me they scan the students ID cards and the parent sets up an account with some online service and prepays for meals, so kids don't have to worry about carrying cash (and no need for a cash register.)
That also keeps the bullies from stealing their lunch money.
Unfounded mandates? Is that a conservative homophobe's blind date no show?
The 3 main conservative terms, unfunded mandate, boondoggle, constitution. At least one is used in almost every post I see. DOD is unfunded, and has to be paid for every year. DOD pensions are unfunded, and have to be paid for every year.
Where does the federal government get the authority toI implement these stupid programs
From your GOD.
Where does the federal government get the authority toI implement these stupid programs
From your GOD.
It was sarcasm of a sort. The religious right believes all morality comes from God. The moral majority has decided that these programs need to be implemented and rightfully so. The immoral such as CollegeConservative put money and cost into the equation before considering morality. Before you go screaming foul CC, anyone who defends cost over hungry children is immoral.
Where does the federal government get the authority toI implement these stupid programs
The Right claims we must view the "general welfare" provisions in the most narrow light. James Madison sponsored a bill in the First Congress to tax shipping for lighthouses and to set up hospitals for disabled seamen. Clearly there was no SPECIFIC authority in the Constitution for the then new federal government to be engaged in either activity. So where did the authority come from? CC would have us believe that without that SPECIFIC authority, Madison's bill was unconstitutional. But James Madison probably knew a tad bit more about Original Intent than today's braindead dittoheads. The language in the Constitution is clear... the federal government has the power to promote AND provide for the general welfare... and it leaves it to Congress to decide what general welfare means. You out there CC? Or have you scampered off?