SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM.   Term Paper ID:18887 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Purpose, effects, funding, eligibility, impact on family, provisions, administration.... More...

8 Pages / 1800 Words 9 sources, 29 Citations, APA Format $32.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Purpose, effects, funding, eligibility, impact on family, provisions, administration. Paper Introduction: Background Mikesell (1986), Wildavsky (1984), and Brewer and deLeon (1983) report that President Johnson's War on Poverty had ambitious aims for a wide variety of social programs that had the goal of eliminating poverty on a nationwide basis. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 constituted the beginning of the War on Poverty, with numerous subsequent acts being passed that furthered the war efforts. There were included in these acts, legislation encompassing programs such as civil rights, voting rights, aid to public schools, nutrition programs, health insurance for the elderly, community action programs, the Job Corps training program for high school dropouts and unemployed teenagers, legal services for the poor, Head Start, and VISTA. During this period, the emphasis from the White House was on Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. These factors simply added to the stigmatization studentrecipients already experienced by virtue of belonging to families thatcannot afford to provide for their lunches. The poor ye need not have: Lessons from thewar on poverty. This is an important issue, in that manychildren are stigmatized by their non-program counterparts, feel inferiorbecause their families cannot afford to provide them money with which topurchase lunch, feel inferior because they cannot bring lunch from home,and feel that they constitute a burden to the "system." Moreover, CommonCause (1978) notes that the use of tickets to identify free-lunch andreduced-lunch students also alienates them from their counterparts. As an example of the administrativepractices, consider that physical separation is mandated as being illegal,which acts to decrease and/or neutralize stigmatization that may resultfrom children being program participants. Moreover, they are responsible for insuring that thesefunctions be performed in compliance with the Office of Management andBudget, state, and school guidelines. Zethik, C. (1978). During this period, the emphasis from the White House was onsharing America's expanding wealth (Brewer & de Leon, 1983, p. Common Cause (1978) reports that,for those impoverished children who were unable to have breakfast at homeand could not afford to purchase lunch, nor bring it from home, there wasthe one redeeming factor of providing them lunch at school, as a way tocompensate for their routine nutritional deficits. While theSchool Lunch Program is primarily provided for through the National SchoolLunch Act, as amended, the 1966 Child Nutrition Act, as well as severalpieces of legislation are involved (U.S. Congress, 1981, p. Mikesell (1986)and Moynihan (1973) note that, by the federal, state, and local governmentsproviding the school lunch program, the social responsibility of governmentis fulfilled..from this perspective. For those private schoolsthat are allowed to participate in this program, the auspices is typicallythe same as delineated above. The eligibility requirementsare, however, based upon family size and annual income (U.S. Forchildren, there is even more of an implied responsibility on the part ofthe government, particularly since children are helpless and have onlytheir parents and/or significant others or the government to protect theirinterests. for the school lunchprogram, although the cafeteria may be open from 7: a.m. 425). Brewer and deLeon (1983) andZethik (1966) report that the administrative practices for the school lunchprogram primarily adhere to the constraints of other governmentadministrators; that is, school lunch administrators are responsible forplanning, organizing, supervising, directing, coordinating, and budgetingfunctions. The auspices of the school lunchprogram fall for the most part to the participating school, respectivestate agency, and then the federal government. The participationof private educational institutions is limited by state law and the yearlytuition amount. (Zethik, 1966). Family Functions The School Lunch Program affects virtually every aspect of therecipient's family life, with qualification. New York Times, p. Congress, 1981). War on Poverty: The school lunchdilemma. Brewer, G.D., & deLeon, P. Contrary to popularbelief, the school lunch program benefitted all ethnicities, rather thanbeing specific to African-Americans. As well, the parental role of either preparing lunch, orinsuring that funds are provided for lunch, is relieved. (1986). New York Times Magazine, 56-57, 59, 61, 64, 66, 71, 83. For free lunches, prior to 1983, the income guidelines foreligibility determination were based on 13 percent of the nonfarm incomepoverty guidelines as advanced by the Office of Management and Budget, withannual adjustment as indicated. The administrative practices arebound by all three levels of government, with the federal governmentholding the highest authority. Moynihan, P. The first type is the freelunch, for which the receiving student pays no fee from his or her ownfunds. There is lacking consensus as to whether soundnutritional practices positively influence mental health. Theallocations for food service equipment assistance were repealed, althoughnutrition education and training continue to be funded. Congress,1981, p. This is particularly the case, whenthe family is receiving food stamps, general relief, and/or other forms ofwelfare, which would denote their independent ability to afford adequatemeals and other costs associated with daily living. There were included in these acts,legislation encompassing programs such as civil rights, voting rights, aidto public schools, nutrition programs, health insurance for the elderly,community action programs, the Job Corps training program for high schooldropouts and unemployed teenagers, legal services for the poor, Head Start,and VISTA. References Arnold, M. 521-525).Arnold (1974) reports that the impetus for the commencement of the NationalSchool Lunch Program was the elimination of impoverished children arrivingat school hungry, as well as the negative influence their failing to eatbreakfast had on academic performance. 526).When the given state has a per capita less than that of the average percapita of all states, the federal government will provide funding that isproportionately 3 percent of the state's per capita (p. Fiscal administration--analysis andapplications for the public sector. The applicant must insure that the SocialSecurity number of all adults within the applying household are provided toauthorities. Common Cause (1978), Arnold(1974), and Levine (197 ) report that the patterns of family formation arenot typically affected by participation in the school lunch program; thatis, recipients do not make decisions about marriage, birth, divorce, nordeath based on service provision. Mikesell, J.L. The School Lunch Program is paid for by the federal government, alongwith participating states, which must contribute matching funds as per aprescribed formula (U.S. (1973). (197 ). 524). That is, the government has theobligation to insure equal protection under the law to all residents. For 1983 and beyond, the eligibilitydetermination is based upon the gross income standards used forparticipation in the food stamp program, which is funded through the FoodStamp Act of 1977. Incontrast, service receipt allows such families to insure that theirchildren receive lunch on a regular basis, thus enhancing nutritionalpractices. NewYork: Random House. TheSchool Lunch Program, the subject of this paper, is a derivative of thenutrition programs enacted during Johnson's War on Poverty. (1981). 526). Brewerand deLeon (1983) report that, during the early history of the School LunchProgram, student recipients were made to stand in a line that was separatefrom those who purchased either reduced-fee lunches or fully-paid lunches.Further, the food received by these students was typically cold andunattractively prepared, causing further stigmatization to studentrecipients. In this sense, thefederal government, in general, and the state and educational institution,in specific, intervened to compensate for environmental deficiencies forthose children coming from impoverished backgrounds. Wildavsky, A. The appropriations to each state, as well as each school, arecontingent upon the average per capita income, the family-size income levelof program applicants/recipients, and the state's relative standing for percapita income to all remaining states. Arnold (1974) notes that health and mental health arealso positively influenced by sound nutritional practices. Family Impact Questions Those families who receive services via the school lunch program maywell feel even more stigmatized, on the one hand, because their children'sparticipation in such a program publicizes their inability to providelunches for them. Eligibility The eligibility requirements do not target applicants due to theirracial, ethnic, nor religious affiliations. Levine, R.A. Cambridge: MIT P. As a result,there are both negative and positive outcomes from participation in theschool lunch program for both children recipients and their parents. (1983). What this denotes is that all individuals should be able toreceive services that are extended to others; thus, the school lunchprogram facilitates equity in this given situation while allowing thegovernment to fulfill social responsibility. Chicago: Dorsey. Public Law 97-35, Title VIII--School Lunchand Child Nutrition Programs, 521-535. Second, social interaction is alsopositively correlated with sound nutritional practices. The second type is the reduced-price lunch, which is provided tothe majority of program participants and is made available to the childrenof families whose family-size income exceeds the limitations for the freelunch. For them,participation in the school lunch program may well mean that their childrenwill now be able to eat two meals per day; that is, their children can noweat lunch and dinner, since many of these families cannot afford to providebreakfast. Further, participation denotes food stamps receipt. For reduced-priced lunches, eligibility determinationis based on 185 percent of the family-size income levels of the nonfarmincome poverty guidelines by the Office of Management and Budget, withannual adjustment as indicated. The good war that might have been. Beyond these, Brewer and deLeon(1983) note that the administrator is to dovetail or differentiate otherschool programs as indicated by law. Common Cause (1978) and Arnold (1974)report, however, that the economic standing of the recipient family may besubstantially positively influenced. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 constituted thebeginning of the War on Poverty, with numerous subsequent acts being passedthat furthered the war efforts. When the family-size income level is determined to be higherthan the stipulated cut-off for free lunches, the child is provided reduced-price lunches. Common Cause. (1966, November 29). The foundation of policyanalysis. As an example,Johnson (Arnold, 1974) found that those persons with balanced diets tendedto perform better in school than did their opposites (i.e., havingnonbalanced diets). First, the academic performance of children tends to be positivelycorrelated with sound nutrition. Brewer anddeLeon (1983) report that the school lunch program affords protection tochildren who might not have otherwise been provided the noon meal and,resultantly, been subjected to a variety of adverse affects. Congress, 1981, pp. through 5: p.m. Components The National School Lunch Act and the Children Nutrition Act providethe primary basis of the School Lunch Program (U.S. Beyond Public Law 97-35,numerous additional laws are involved, including the Food Stamp Act. TheSchool Lunch Program is comprised of three segments, all of which addressthe type of lunches all students are served. (1984). For any school year, such payments shall be made to a State only if, during such school year, the amount of the State revenues (excluding State revenues derived from the operation of the program) appropriated or used specifically for program purposes (other than any State revenues expended for salaries and administrative expenses of the program at the state level) is not less than 3 percent of the funds made available to such State under section 4 of this Act of the school year beginning July 1, 198 (p. (1974, September 29). The politics of a guaranteed income. The third type is the paid lunch, which entails that the studentpay the entire price of the school lunch. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Arnold (1974) reports that the administration of the school lunchprogram is to facilitate the extension of sensitivity to the childrenreceiving program services. Section 7 (a)(1), ofSection 8 4, of the National School Lunch Act, as amended, indicates thatthe Secretary makes available funds to each state for disbursement to stateeducational agencies, which in turn use such appropriations to purchaseagricultural commodities and other foods. Making government work--School nutrition.Washington, DC: Common Cause. 17.----------------------- 9 526). Boston: Little, Brown. With participationin the school lunch program, many students have indeed experienced improvedacademic standing. The hours ofoperation are generally during 11:3 a.m.-1: p.m. U.S. Beyond this, many of these childrenwere unable to afford the purchase price of lunch and typically did nothave food to bring from home for lunch. This isparticularly the case for the children residing in homes headed byneglectful parents, parents who cannot afford to provide lunch, and parentswhose public assistance fails to facilitate the noon meal. Levine (197 ) reports that education is influenced in severalways. The staffing is typically composed ofcafeteria and ancillary staff (i.e., cafeteria manager/supervisor, cooks,dishwashers, counterpersons, utility persons, etc.), all of whom servebreakfast, lunch, snack and even supper, as indicated. Congress. to provide a variety of meals, beverages, etc. Background Mikesell (1986), Wildavsky (1984), and Brewer and deLeon (1983)report that President Johnson's War on Poverty had ambitious aims for awide variety of social programs that had the goal of eliminating poverty ona nationwide basis. The process of the budgetary process (4thed.). If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.