Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was elected to a small rural school board I saw just how that operates.
If over a certain % qualify for school free/reduced price lunches, the school district receives more State Aid per pupil as your school district is deemed a poverty district.
Our Supt said he knew our district qualified but the problem was too many hard working families took pride in providing food for their kids and wouldn't apply even though they were eligible.
The school then sent out letters begging parents gto apply and if their pride would not allow them to let the govt feed their kids..........they could refuse but our district could reach the quota and get poverty aid.
Very few people did this including me ( although I was surprised to learn my family qualified)
When asked why, I , a school board member, refused to apply .............I stated it is no ones business at school what my farm income is !
I can afford to feed my family and believe feeding them is a priority before spending money on other things.
A shame the govt encourages people who are getting by w/o welfare to apply for welfare !
Eligibility for reduced price lunches is 185% of the poverty level, right? And it appears that figure for 2016 is $44,965 for 48 contiguous states, not $58,442. https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.fede...0/original.png
So within a census tract 50% of the residents would have to receive less than that and let's get it straight, 44K is not a ton of money for four people to live on. I am amazed that you are troubled about poor kids getting a free meal in a nation where at least 40% of our food is wasted.
You are correct 44,965, I was looking at a different chart and adding the 185%.
The median household income in the US is ~53,657. Forty four thousand may not be a lot but it doesn't mean you are going hungry. Hunger in this country is not defined by hunger or malnutrition it is defined by food insecurity thru a series of questions.
Again and again and again, I am not troubled about poor kids getting a free meal. I do not believe kids are going hungry. We have multiple programs to provide food assistance for needy families. The summer feeding program is not based on individual need and it does nothing to alleviate hunger. I don't know the exact overall numbers but probably 40% of food provided through the meal programs is wasted. I dont see a need for supplying food to anyone under 18 regardless of true need, especially when a large percentage of the food is being thrown out.
FARM programs already exist almost everywhere during the school year. The marginal costs of extending those through the summer in the neediest areas are not significant in comparison to the levels of need itself. Keep in mind that we are talking about children here, and that proper nutrition is a key contributor to the likelihood of their growing into healthy adults. And again, in areas that can and do declare all children FARM eligible, there are no more forms to fill out and no more paperwork costs to defray.
Show me evidence of actual need. Show me true hunger, malnutrition or physical evidence of malnutrition in 50% of our population, 10%? Those qualifying under the poverty guidelines you keep referring to as farm programs already receive food subsidies. $~398million in 2012 was spent on the summer program. There are indeed forms to fill out. Each school year families must fill out the free reduced lunch modified forms requiring family information. This is how the 50% is determined.
Quote:
SNAP families are automatically eligible for FARM. SNAP of course supports an ability to prepare healthful and nutritious meals AT HOME.
Exactly, duplicate assistance.
Quote:
Every child is in need of food, period. And we know that far too many children by any measure of income do not have reliable access to a proper diet. The real question here is why we do not simply make free meals at school available to ALL children ALL of the time.
No we do not know this. There is no real evidence that far too many children do not have reliable access to proper diet.
Most children don't eat the free meals. They throw much of it out. Why do we need as a collective society to feed all the children. That is the responsibility of the family. There are multiple services to help those in need.
Quote:
Why would leaving children on (or worse yet, forcing them into) sub-standard diets be a good idea? Should we assume that the problem here is that parents do not have enough incentive to feed their children properly? And that draconian, child-neglectful approaches are likely to provide a new incentive that will somehow push parents over the top? I don't think I can buy into that.
No one is forcing sub-standard diets.
Exactly, many parents arent feeding their children properly. They have a choice in which foods to purchase. Look around, honestly.
When I was elected to a small rural school board I saw just how that operates.
If over a certain % qualify for school free/reduced price lunches, the school district receives more State Aid per pupil as your school district is deemed a poverty district.
Our Supt said he knew our district qualified but the problem was too many hard working families took pride in providing food for their kids and wouldn't apply even though they were eligible.
The school then sent out letters begging parents gto apply and if their pride would not allow them to let the govt feed their kids..........they could refuse but our district could reach the quota and get poverty aid.
Very few people did this including me ( although I was surprised to learn my family qualified)
When asked why, I , a school board member, refused to apply .............I stated it is no ones business at school what my farm income is !
I can afford to feed my family and believe feeding them is a priority before spending money on other things.
A shame the govt encourages people who are getting by w/o welfare to apply for welfare !
And I discovered that in my school district, eligibility for the free/reduced lunch program led to reduced fees and costs for a large number of (unrelated) school activities (the district "piggybacked" on the program eligibility). In politics, my feeling is "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Although we weren't eligible, I certainly would have applied if we were. And I think many "middle class" families are wising up--after footing the bills for all the entitlements, they want their fair share.
I stopped after the first paragraph as I have read the USDA's definitions of "hunger" before. Evidence of actual need, hunger, or access to proper diet is not what food insecurity or this report are about. And it was by USDA, the very agency that promotes this program and others like it. So kind of like having the wolf guard the sheep.
Again, a food security QUESTIONNAIRE is used to determine level of FOOD SECURITY. Approximately 14% of the population is food insecure meaning "at times, unable to acquire adequate food for one or more household members because they had insufficient money and other resources for food. A majority of food-insecure households avoided substantial reductions or disruptions in food intake, in many cases by relying on a few basic foods and reducing variety in their diets. But 5.6 percent had very low food security—that is, they were food insecure to the extent that eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and their food intake reduced, at least some time during the year, because they could not afford enough food. "
As well: 62% of all food insecure hh participated in one or more of the three largest federal food and nutrition assistance programs.
Knowing humans I'd dare say a percentage don't really understand what a balanced meal is as well don't understand the question is purchasing food with your expendable income as a priority as opposed spending it on something else or that enough food includes food items other than the junk food that youreally want.
Sorry but food insecurity is not a measure of need or hunger.
I stopped after the first paragraph as I have read the USDA's definitions of "hunger" before. Evidence of actual need, hunger, or access to proper diet is not what food insecurity or this report are about. And it was by USDA, the very agency that promotes this program and others like it. So kind of like having the wolf guard the sheep.
If you had read the report you would have discovered the indisputable fact that there are children in this Country that do not get enough to eat.
If you had read the report you would have discovered the indisputable fact that there are children in this Country that do not get enough to eat.
I read enough of it. I have read other reports.
Of course there are children in this country that don't get enough to eat but not for lack of available assistance. Nothing in this report leads to any indisputable fact that a significant amount of children (or any at all) in this country are going hungry or suffer from malnutrition due to lack of resources for the family to obtain food. No where does it indicated the summer meals program prevents any children from going hungry.
If you have a legitimate report stating such please feel free to copy and paste a section stating so.
If you had read the report you would hopefully understand a 10-18 (18 if children in the home but basically repetitive questions) question survey completed by 42,147 households is not disputable fact of anything.
I read enough of it. I have read other reports.
Of course there are children in this country that don't get enough to eat but not for lack of available assistance.
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, your position on this is that if a child doesn't get enough to eat and it's the parents fault then too bad for the kid, let them grow up malnourished? You don't see the societal cost in doing that?
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, your position on this is that if a child doesn't get enough to eat and it's the parents fault then too bad for the kid, let them grow up malnourished? You don't see the societal cost in doing that?
How am I not surprised? No, I never said at any point to let children grow up malnourished. Show me 3 cases of child malnourishment in the US other than some nutcase who locked their kid up and didnt feed them or an underlying medical condition.
My position is, again, there is no evidence of any problem of significant hunger in this country. The few cases of true hunger are not due to lack of available services. Giving food during the 2-3 summer months to random children in hopes that one of those kids is the unfortunate child whose parents aren't fit to even provide adequate food does not justify spending nearly 400 million. Money would be best spent and more helpful focusing on helping those particular children/families resolve their problems.
For example, feeding my grandson, food he doesn't need or particularly want, is not going to solve the problem of those children not getting enough to eat due to their parents negligence. Put the money into programs to educate parents on nutrition and balanced meals, to provide nutritional food TO THOSE IN NEED, and increase efforts to keep children out of homes deemed unfit by child services.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
