Some Photo ID Help for DC Homeless, But Hard to Get Without Expert Help

September 2, 2015

I started looking into the District of Columbia’s photo ID requirements when I heard several formerly homeless men complain about the difficulties their peers have had with a process that’s supposed to enable them to get the ID when they’ve no fixed address and/or can’t afford the fee.

I thought it best to being with why they, like all District residents, need a photo ID and what the District ordinarily requires to issue one. The District, to its credit, does afford homeless residents several workarounds. So, as promised, a brief look at them.

Homeless people, as I noted, may not have any of the documents applicants must have to prove they’re District residents, e.g., a recent utility bill in their name, a lease or any of several documents homeowners probably have on file somewhere.

There used to be a workaround for those living doubled up with friends or relatives — a form their host could use to certify their residency. Burdensome for the host, who had to show up in person at the Department of Motor Vehicles, with a photo ID and at least two current proofs of residency.

But at least an avenue toward getting a photo ID that anyone could find out about if s/he looked around online. Now it’s open only to minors.

Doubled-up adults can get certification directly from the Department of Human Services, but only if a caseworker provides a letter stating that they’re homeless and can use his/her organization’s mailing address as their own. They’d need a well-informed caseworker to even know what DHS could do.

What about homeless people who live in shelters or on the streets? For some, there’s another workaround — a voucher that will both substitute for the usual residency proofs and cover the photo ID fee. An even more complex process — and virtually impenetrable to anyone who doesn’t know the system.

Basically, DHS makes vouchers available to pre-approved social service providers that are willing to accept mail on an applicant’s behalf.

There are roughly 40 of these providers. Most will issue vouchers only to homeless people who are clients, residents in their shelters or members of a target group the provider exists to serve, e.g., people who identify as LGBT.

Providers can get only a limited number of vouchers at any given time. They don’t always have enough to meet demand. This, in fact, is what the formerly homeless men griped about — understandably, since trips to any of the sources, except the pre-approved shelters are a costly crap shoot.

It’s also the case, I’m told, that staff at those shelters don’t always know they can issue vouchers — or understand the process. So homeless individuals who’ve heard of the vouchers have been told they can’t get one.

In short, accommodations for homeless people, but probably unknown to those who don’t have a relationship with a well-informed caseworker or the equivalent — and one who’s got the time and concern to help them navigate.

Now, a voucher doesn’t clear the way to a photo ID. Homeless people still have to produce a proof of identity — in most cases, a birth certificate — and proof of a valid Social Security number.

Both, as I earlier wrote, may not be ready to hand for someone who’s homeless. Nor for some of the rest of us. But the costs and wait times for us are probably more annoying than truly problematic — unless, of course, we want to fly someplace in the near future.

Nothing anyone can do about the wait times, it seems. But low-income residents may get help with the costs of a birth certificate. Two local nonprofits offer such financial assistance, though not for the swifter online process.

One source says it can help only the first 15 people who show up in the morning. The other will help the first 36 on Fridays and alternate Saturdays, but only those who’ve got appointments made by a social service provider.

So we’re back to the relationship issue. Homeless and other low-income people who’ve got no such relationship will obviously have to take their chances — perhaps many times.

On a more positive note, the District will waive the documentation requirements and the fee for returning citizens who can get an official letter from the Department of Corrections or either of two agencies responsible for supervising ex-offenders.

Might there be some equally streamlined — and readily discoverable — workaround for residents who haven’t recently spent time behind bars? Shouldn’t the District, at the very least, explore the options?

Shouldn’t nonprofits reconsider their own photo ID requirements?

 


We Need Photo IDs, But Not Easy for Poor and Near-Poor in DC to Get

August 31, 2015

Most of us, I suppose, have a photo ID and don’t think much about what we’d do without it. If we do, it’s probably because 17 states, mostly red, have made photo IDs a passport to the voting booth, not coincidentally disenfranchising disproportionate numbers of blacks, Hispanics and others who tend to vote for Democrats.

Nothing of that sort in the District of Columbia, which would probably be the bluest state if granted statehood. But lack of a photo ID here, as well as elsewhere is a problem — and getting one can be a big problem for people with little or no income.

Why Poor and Near-Poor Residents Need Photo IDs

Doubtful that very low-income residents will be trying to board planes — another occasion when the rest of us may become fleetingly conscious of the need for a photo ID. But they’ll face barriers to opportunities that can improve their situation if they don’t have one.

First off, federal rules require employers to verify the identity of people they hire. All but two of the acceptable documents are photo IDs. The only exception for adults will do nothing for the vast majority of prospective workers.

Second, lack of a photo IDs limits access to cash and in-kind assistance. Some local nonprofit sources of the latter, including many food pantries and some free-clothing providers will distribute only to residents with photo IDs.

The Department of Human Services agency that administers Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, SNAP (the food stamp program) and several smaller safety net programs advises applicants to bring photo IDs with them to the interview that’s part of the application process.

The IDs are not an absolute requirement, according to the department’s policy manual. We can nevertheless assume, I think, that the more accessible instruction — and thus prospects of hassle, if not denial — can deter residents from seeking help they need.

They may also figure it’s futile to try because they believe they must have a photo ID. That’s what the Washington Examiner reported — and what the District itself says homeless families must bring to the center that’s their gateway to services.*

A third reason is that lack of a photo ID can limit low-income residents’ opportunities to advocate for policies, including budgets that will alleviate their hardships — among them, the costs, frustrations and complexities of getting a photo ID.

The problem here is that only people with photo IDs can get into federal and District office buildings, including the building where the DC Council holds hearings and Councilmembers have their offices.

Why Poor and Near-Poor Residents May Face Problems

Getting a photo ID is a one-time nuisance for all District residents. but it’s singularly challenging for those who’ve got no money to spare, haven’t recently worked, except perhaps on a day-to-day or off-the-books basis, and/or don’t own or rent a home of their own.

This is partly because the District charges most residents $20 for an ID card and more than twice as much for a driver’s license, which serves the same identification purposes.

The larger problem is that the District requires three different types of documents for a photo ID — each with its own potential challenges.

Proof of Identity. Photo ID applicants must prove they’re U.S. citizens or legally-authorized immigrants. Many options, but for citizens, the most common are probably a birth certificate or currently-valid passport — unless they’ve already got a photo ID from another jurisdiction.

Not many poor folks have the passport, of course. They may not have a birth certificate handy either. The District will issue a copy to people born here, for a $23 charge. But they’ll need a photo ID or three other documents, none of which everyone is sure to have.

They’ll need a photo ID for sure if they want to request the birth certificate in person because the Vital Records Division is in one of those buildings that requires the ID for entrance.

States charge varying amounts for copies of birth certificates. Mine would cost $20 if I got a paper copy and could wait 6-8 weeks. To speed things up, I could order online — for nearly $88, even more if I need it ASAP.

Social Security Number. The District also requires applicants to present a document proving they have a Social Security number. Most people who work for pay — or did in the prior year — shouldn’t have a problem with this.

They’ll presumably have a pay stub or the end-of-year form their employer filed with the Internal Revenue Service, assuming they are or were actually on a payroll. Not much hope for many day laborers or people who do low-wage, occasional work for individuals and families.

For them, the only official option is a Social Security card. Lots of people who once had one don’t any more, for any one of a number of reasons, including theft of the wallet it was tucked in or just simple loss.

Either may be particularly likely for homeless individuals who spend their nights in shelters or on the streets and have to lug all their worldly belongings around during the day.

The solution then is getting a replacement Social Security card. But for that, one has to prove identity, with that photo ID, which won’t be issued without the card, or an ID of another specified sort, e.g., issued by an employer, school or government agency.

And if the Social Security Administration hasn’t issued the applicant a card before, it requires a birth certificate or passport. This is also true for a replacement if the applicant became a U.S. citizen after the original card was issued. Bit of a Catch 22 here, as you can see.

Proofs of Residency. Applicants must also produce two documents proving they live in the District, e.g., a recent utility bill, current lease or home insurance policy with their name on it, official mail from a federal or District government agency, with the envelope it came in.

Even homeowners and renters might have difficulty coming up with such documents. What if, for example, the lease and utility accounts are in a spouse’s name — or if they’re paying for a room or two on an informal month-to-month basis? And who, pray tell, saves the envelopes agency mail comes in?

The challenges are obviously greater for homeless people, including those who live doubled-up with friends or relatives, especially if they move frequently from one home to another. Though the District does have some workarounds, they’re a complex business — and known only to those in the know.

Why Such Challenges

The District didn’t just gin up all these documentation requirements. After 9/11, the Bush administration and Congress decided we’d all be a lot safer if terrorists couldn’t so easily board planes (or enter federal facilities and nuclear plants) with fraudulent IDs.

So the District had to impose requirements that would meet federal standards. Whether it could comply using a simpler, more flexible set is beyond my ken.

Whether it could do more to help homeless and other very low-income residents deal with the challenges the current set poses is a separate question. Look for a followup post on this.

* The statement about intake at the Family Resources Center appears, on its face, inconsistent with DHS policy. I have tried, without success, to fact-check it with staff directly responsible for center operations.

 

 

 


Much to Like (Though Not Everything) in Draft TANF Bill

August 27, 2015

The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources styles its bill to revamp Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a discussion draft, indicating that it’s still a work in progress. A good thing that, since as I’ve already said, it’s far from problem-free.

The biggest problem, to my mind — and the one that may prove the biggest sticking point — is its failure to increase the block grant, which gets divvied up among states to help cover program costs.

The draft nevertheless has enough promising features for us to hope that it addresses this and other problems progressive experts have flagged.

Here’s a summary of features that particularly struck me, with apologies to you policy wonks and service providers who understandably would like more details. The law and the rules that govern what states must, may and can’t do are dauntingly complex.

A New TANF Purpose. Surprising as it may seem, the general purposes Congress has defined for TANF don’t include poverty reduction. The discussion draft would.

What it wouldn’t do, however, is hold states accountable for reducing poverty among families that participated in their TANF programs. Nor for those their programs currently serve — let alone all they should.

A dismal record on several counts. The new purpose wouldn’t improve it. But at least one other feature could. (Read on.)

Expanded Work Activity Options. Few features of the current TANF law are as problematic as the limits on activities states can count toward their required work participation rates, i.e., the targets they supposedly have to hit to avert penalties. (Again, read on and you’ll understand why “supposedly.”)

On the one hand, we’ve got core activities, which states can count for all the hours they’re supposed to have parents engaged, and non-core activities, which states can count only for parents who engage in core activities for a specified minimum number of hours per week.

On the other hand, we’ve got limits on countable core activity time for participation in vocational education programs, other education programs directly related to employment and high school attendance. The first counts only for a year — and for no more than 30% of parents. The latter two only for parents still in their teens.

Together, these tend to deny TANF parents opportunities to gain the formal education credentials and marketable skills, including basic literacy, that will enable them to get jobs that pay enough to support themselves as their children — or indeed, any jobs at all.

One need only look at the unemployment rate for all but the youngest working-age adults who don’t have a high school diploma or the equivalent for evidence of one of the defects in the current scheme.

The draft would extend the vocational education limit to two years and the high school age limit to twenty-five. It leaves open the question of whether to adjust the voc. ed. cap.

It also loosens up countable time restrictions that could benefit TANF parents ready to enter the workforce — or far from ready. For example, states could count toward their work participation rates more job search time and more time in so-called job readiness activities like mental health counseling.

Simplified Work Participation Rate. What states can count toward their required work participation rates depends not only on how the rules classify activities, but on whether participants are in one-parent or two-parent families. More core activity hours required for the latter.

The end result of these various distinctions is a large administrative burden, as you can imagine. The director of a nonprofit partnership that provides TANF services recently testified that their career counselors spend more than half their time on documentation.

The draft would do away with both the core/non-core distinction and the so-called marriage penalty, i.e., the higher work participation rate for parents who are living together. It would also allow states to get partial credit toward their rate for certain parents who participate for fewer hours than the standard minimum.

Steps Toward Accountability for Results. Though the draft doesn’t hold states accountable for poverty reduction, it does require them to measure two related outcomes — employment and median wages for parents who recently left the program.

States would have to measure these outcomes for all parents who no longer receive cash assistance, whether because they’ve moved from welfare to work or for some less hopeful reason, e.g., because they’d reached the end of their state’s time limit.

CLASP, among others, has alerted the subcommittee to problems with the outcome measures. But making states responsible for what their work-related services achieve, rather than merely parents’ participation in them is another smart, overdue move.

No More Caseload Reduction Credit. Many states have had a deuce of a time meeting the work participation rates. They face a penalty — loss of some of their block grant funds — if they don’t.

But they can avert the penalty by reducing the number of families they serve. They’ve thus got an incentive to keep eligible families out of their programs and to get those who’ve surmounted the barriers out — work-ready or otherwise.

As I’ve written before, states — and the District of Columbia — impose sanctions, up to and including full benefits cut-offs when parents don’t do what they’ve been told to. Or rather, when some authority decides they haven’t.

A family that’s lost its benefits altogether doesn’t count as part of the caseload. So it’s not surprising to learn that some agencies have seized on every occasion to impose so-called full family sanctions — or in some cases, reportedly trumped one up.

The discussion draft would eliminate the caseload reduction credit — and thus, one hopes, overuse of sanctions, which inevitably punish children.

These aren’t the only features that make the draft a surprisingly strong step toward improving the altogether worst part of our safety net. (Ruthless cutting here to control post length.)

What will come of the draft remains to be seen. But we can at least hope for a bill with all the draft’s good features, plus good revisions, good answers to the open questions and a substantial block grant increase.

Better that than to focus on the hurdles such a bill would have to clear to get to the President’s desk.

Note: Those of you who wish I’d left the other features in may find them in two of the publicly accessible sources I used — comments by CLASP’s chief TANF expert and testimony by her counterpart at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

 


Hopes for a Better TANF Program Undercut by Lack of Funding

August 24, 2015

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families just had its 19th birthday. It’s long overdue for an overhaul. And we just may see one before the end of the year.

Congress last reauthorized TANF 10 years ago. By and large, it made a flawed program worse — assuming, as I think we should, that it’s supposed to provide a safety net for poor families, while helping parents prepare for and find jobs that enable them to support themselves and their children.

Now the House subcommittee responsible for TANF seems poised to finish a reauthorization bill. And surprisingly, the discussion draft responds to concerns that progressive advocates, as well as some state administrators have raised for a long time.

I say “surprisingly” not only because Republicans control the subcommittee, but because Congressman Paul Ryan, who now chairs the full Ways and Means Committee, has often cited TANF as the model safety net program.

The bill, which is still a work in progress, is far from problem-free. Most importantly, it fails to do one big thing. And that will mean either no new law or some harmful consequences.

The one big thing is to boost the block grant — the federal government’s share of money for the benefits and services states’ programs provide. It’s been stuck at the same level as when TANF began. So it’s lost about a third of its real dollar value.

The draft would provide not a penny more. At the same time, it would require states to do two things they don’t have to do now — develop genuinely individualized plans for TANF families and track employment-related outcomes for those that leave the program.

The new mandates are surely promising, though the latter warrants revisions, as CLASP’s detailed comments show. They would also, however, require investments of administrative resources.

Other changes would tend to offset the administrative burden, but states would still come up short on funds to make those outcomes as good as they might otherwise be.

At the same time, the draft would eliminate the TANF Contingency Fund — a pot of money that states can tap (until it runs dry) when a recession or other hit to their economy indicates they’ll have more families to serve.

States would have as much flexibility as ever to cope with funding crunches by dropping their already-low income eligibility ceilings, reducing the lifetime time limits for participation, as some states have eagerly done, and/or by other measures to shrink their caseloads, e.g., pre-enrollment job search requirements, costly, ineffective, but still humiliating drug tests.

The draft would eliminate a major incentive states have to do reduce their caseloads by any or all of these, as well as by doling out so-called full family sanctions, i.e., total benefits cut-offs, which also reduce the caseload count.

But the fixed block grant funding level, plus the loss of extra funds in extra-bad times would leave states with another incentive to serve as few families as they can — and to forgo their new opportunities to improve employment prospects for those they do.

I’ll return to the promising features I’ve referred to — and a couple I haven’t — in a separate post. I’ve begun with the big problem because they’ll all be for naught if the federal government fails to do its share for our country’s poorest families, as it has — and increasingly so — for most of the last 19 years.

 


New Plan to Reduce Child Poverty in America

August 20, 2015

Children have the highest poverty rate of any age group in our country. Nearly 14.7 million of them — 19.9% — are officially poor, according to the latest Census report.

The percent is even higher for infants and toddlers, a new brief from the Center for American Progress tells us — nearly 23% or well over one in five. CAP has a four-part proposal to reduce the child poverty rate — and the depth of poverty for children who’d still be poor.

Unlike a plan I earlier blogged on, its parts all have to do with the Child Tax Credit. The first part, tucked into the brief as a starting point, is a permanent extension of the improvement the Recovery Act made. It’s now among the refundable tax credit improvements due to expire in 2017.

CAP’s plan would then do what some progressives advocated for the Recovery Act — drop the threshold for claiming the CTC to the first dollar of earned income, rather than the first dollar over $3,000.

At the same time, the plan would make the CTC fully refundable. In other words, a family would get a refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the entire amount its income tax liability fell short of the deductions and credits it claimed.

The credit now phases in to a maximum of $1,000 per child, leaving low-income parents with only a partial credit — or in some cases, no credit at all for a second or third child.

A third change would index the per child credit to inflation so that it didn’t lose value over time. Like the other two parts I’ve cited, linking the credit to the Consumer Price Index the IRS uses for tax provisions would make the CTC more like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Now comes a part that CAP refers to as “enhancing” the CTC, but would actually be more like the child allowances many European countries (and a few others) provide. Families with children less than three years old would get $125 a month, regardless of income or how they net out at tax time.

They’d get this supplement monthly as a direct deposit to their bank account or on a debit card. So they’d have more to spend as they needed it to pay for the costs of caring for their babies and toddlers.

These costs can be very high. I’ve already said my bit about diapers. Full-time day care in a center for an infant cost, on average, more than $10,000 a year in half the states in 2013. And far from all poor and near-poor families can have their children’s daycare costs subsidized by either of the two main federal funding sources.

Rolling all the costs together, a CNN Money calculator tells us that a low-income family will have to pay, on average, an estimated $176,550 to raise a child born two years ago — $35,880 more if they live in an urban area in the northeast part of the country.

Now, CAP’s proposals would hardly supply parents with the wherewithal to pay for anything approaching this. Nor are they intended to. They wouldn’t eliminate child poverty either. They would, however, reduce it.

The overall poverty rate for children under seventeen would fall by 13.2%, CAP says. About 18% of children under three would be lifted out of poverty altogether — this, I assume, because of the extra income boost parents of children this young would get.

CAP also looks at the combined effects of its proposals on families with infants and toddlers who’d still have incomes (less any EITC refund and/or cash benefits) below the federal poverty line.

For them, it estimates how far its proposal would go toward closing the “poverty gap,” i.e., the difference between their average income and the FPL.

The gap would shrink by an estimated 26.1% nationwide, it reports. But, of course, the proposals would shrink the gap for all now-poor families with children — perhaps, in fact, lifting some of them above the FPL and, for sure, reducing the poverty gap for all.

The gap-closing effects of the proposals would vary considerably from state to state, a map supplement to the brief shows. They range from 25.4% in Hawaii to 12% in Wyoming. We who live in the District of Columbia could see a gap roughly 16.4% smaller.

CAP’s proposals would cost an estimated $29.2 billion if they were all in place this year. Somewhat more in the future, since the child tax credit would increase to keep pace with consumer price inflation.

This is hardly a big investment, even for spending through the tax code. So-called tax expenditures will cost the federal government about $1.22 trillion this year, the National Priorities Project reports.

Unlike many of the tax breaks, however, investments to reduce child poverty would pay for themselves many times over. An oft-cited study conducted in 2007 concluded that child poverty cost our country about half a trillion a year. Adjusting for inflation, CAP puts the total at more than $672 billion.

But this is a low-end estimate because the study included only the largest and mostly easily quantifiable costs, as the authors dutifully noted.

One doesn’t, I think, want our policies to hinge on dollars saved by alleviating the hardships and lifelong consequences of growing up in a family that’s so short on money as to be officially poor — or the hardships parents suffer to do the best they can for their children.

But if the return on investment would help CAP’s proposals gain support in a Congress that seems reluctant to even sustain the anti-poverty programs we’ve got, a strong talking point is ready to hand.

 


Better Chapter Opens for Homeless Family

August 17, 2015

My post on the homeless family that fled to keep their child out of foster care seems to have interested followers and others in the social media sphere. So I thought you’d like a brief update.

Shortly after I published the post, I got a note from “Carey,” the storyteller, who then posted it as a comment. More details in a second note, also then posted.

Carey reports that the family now has a home and employment — a full-time job for her fiance. Proof, though she doesn’t say so, that she was right about just needing more time than the Child Protective Services caseworker would allow.

The family is also receiving some form of assistance from the state they’re now living in. This, I suppose, because Carey is still staying home to care for their child. “The smartest two year old I know!”

And they haven’t been dogged by the caseworker (or higher-ups), though she thinks the agency could find them now.

“It’s a slow process regaining all that was lost,” she writes. “But we lost nothing as long as we have each other…. With love and understanding … and the hard work put in, I’m sure our family will succeed.”

So we have indeed the better next chapter I hoped for and a heart-warming reminder of why I — and those who responded to the post — did.

Better chapter notwithstanding, Carey still feels that what happened to the family was “unjustifiable.” After all, people live outdoors in Alaska. “What’s camping for a month in the summer?”

“People don’t understand the unjust power those people [at CPS] have until it’s happened with their family,” she concludes. I’d like to think that’s not altogether true.

But we do need stories to grasp how injustices in our publicly-funded programs play out in the lives of real people — and to get us riled up enough to do something about them.


What We Can Hope for (and Not) in the New Child Nutrition Act

August 13, 2015

Lots for Congress to do when members return to the capital. The must-do list includes some measure to keep funds flowing to programs covered by the Child Nutrition Act, since it’s due to expire at the end of September.

Work is already underway to renew the CNA for the usual five years. House members and Senators have introduced more than a dozen bills they hope will shape the final product.

A somewhat selective preview then of what we can hope to see — and what we might see that shouldn’t be hoped for.

More Free Summer Meals

The Food Research and Action Center has, for some years now, tracked low-income school-age children’s participation in summer meal programs.

The latest rate is somewhat better than recent past rates, but still indicates that only about one in six children who received free or reduced-price school lunches in 2013-14 also got free mid-day meals during the peak month for summer meal programs.

Many reasons for this. One is built into the law — a limit on where community-based organizations may serve summer meals without paying the full cost. They’re eligible for reimbursements only if they’re in an area where at least half the children qualify for free or reduced-price school meals.

This is especially problematic in rural communities — and probably a growing number of suburbs — where there are pockets of poverty in the midst of better-off areas.

The Summer Meals Act would lower the so-called area eligibility standard to 40%. This is the standard already used to target Title I education funds for low-income and other disadvantaged children, as well as the newer standard that enables schools to serve free meals to all students.

There’d be some grant funds to get more children in rural communities to summer meal sites — or summer meals to them directly via specially-outfitted trucks.

The bill would also eliminate duplicative paperwork, which may deter some nonprofits and public agencies from participating. And it would allow all summer meal sites, instead of only some camps and sites serving primarily migrant children to serve three subsidized meals a day, rather than only two.

Cash-Like Benefits to Fill the Summer Meal Gap

Another bill takes a different, complementary approach to the risk of hunger that increases when summer rolls round.

The Stop Summer Hunger Act would partly compensate low-income parents for the extra they often have to spend on food during the summer months, when they may have to feed their children three meals a day — and like as not do, though perhaps only by skimping on food for themselves.

Families with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals would get electronic benefits cards, like the cards now used in SNAP (the food stamp program).

The cards would pay for $150 in foods and beverages next summer — more in later years to reflect increases in the reimbursement rates that partially offset the costs of the meals schools serve.

Better Meals for More Kids in Day Care

The Child and Adult Care Food Program, as its name suggests, subsidizes meals and/or snacks that childcare providers, adult day care centers and certain other programs, e.g., Head Start, serve.

By far and away the largest number fed are children — about 3.5 million a day in Fiscal Year 2013, FRAC reports.

The Access to Healthy Food for Young Children Act would make several changes similar to those proposed in the Summer Meals Act.

It would lower the area eligibility standard for providers who care for children in their homes. It would also enable providers to serve three subsidized meals to children they care for eight hours a day.

And very importantly, it would increase reimbursement rates, which are now so low as to deter participation in the program and/or serving optimally healthful meals and snacks.

Not much of a boost proposed — just 10 cents per meal. But the bill would also provide some additional funding to offset the costs of complying with the updated nutrition standards the U.S. Department of Agriculture will soon issue.

Let Them Eat Cake

On the downside, we find dubious concessions to the School Nutrition Association, which purports to represent many millions of the school personnel responsible for planning and supervising the preparation of school meals.

The Association contends, as it has for some time, that the current nutrition standards for subsidized meals are unworkable.

USDA issued them, as the current CNA required, to reflect the latest version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from several other expert sources.

Basically, they call for more fruits and veggies, “whole grain rich” bread, pizza crust and the like, low-fat or nonfat milk, less sodium and saturated fats, virtually no added trans fats and age-based limits on calories per week.

Meals that comply cost too much, the School Nutrition Association says. And schools lose more money because kids who can buy their meals elsewhere do — or bring them from home.

Those who do go to the cafeteria won’t eat what’s served. So food — and the federal money that subsidizes it — are wasted.

USDA and others have rebutted most of these arguments, as a FRAC summary indicates. But the Association has tapped favorite themes in the Republicans’ playbook — waste in federal programs and “one-size-fits-all” regulations that cramp needed flexibility.

So we see bills that would prohibit USDA from administering or enforcing major components of the meal standards. The Healthy Meals Flexibility Act would roll back the “whole grain rich” requirement to what it was before the update and free schools from any effort to reduce sodium.

A companion bill would go further toward reducing federal mandates, as its title indicates. It would also effectively eliminate both the maximum calorie limits and the minimum-maximum ranges for grains of any sort, meat and meat alternatives.

I don’t know enough to assess every jot and tittle of the school meal standards. And I don’t doubt that some schools have found compliance challenging.

But the real issue the attacks on the standards raise is whether meals our taxpayer dollars subsidize should reflect the best current scientific judgments on the makeup of a well-balanced diet for children — and thus the foods they’re introduced to and the eating habits they develop.

This is especially critical, I think, for low-income children, whose parents may have neither the financial resources nor the time to serve healthful meals at home or fix them to put into backpacks.

In any event, we’ll soon have new Dietary Guidelines for Americans. So it would seem sensible for Congress to again require USDA to update the standards, so far as necessary.

Far better than to preempt any enforcement of requirements adapted from recommendation of top-flight, disinterested experts.

 

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 207 other followers