Quotes are taken from a message written by Tom to Charles on 05/02/96...
TC>I think I will check into what percentage of funds are actually Federal
TC>Funds here locally.  If it is only ten percent perhaps the powers in
TC>charge could be coerced into dropping the Federal funding in favor of
TC>reduced spending.  Over all savings could offset the difference by not
TC>having to comply with Federal Mandates attached to funding.
If you find out the percentage, why not share it with the rest of us?  
And if you are able to coerce the "powers in charge" into dropping the 
federal funding, please let us know what services the district will 
eliminate in order to compensate for the loss of revenue.
CB>In order for schools to be able to administer the "free meals"
CB>program without a heavy investment in administrative overhead, the federal
CB>government has made it *very* easy for families to cheat on their     
CB>applications.                             
TC>IMO making it easy to cheat the system has far greater consequences than
TC>just getting a free meal.  My view is that it is stealing from the
TC>truly needy and as such is not acceptable.
I'm sure that you understood that I was not advocating that people 
cheat, only that it was easier for people to get on the free lunch 
program because income limits were published in advance and because 
districts were not required to hire people to verify free lunch 
applications against income tax records.  But in response to your claim 
above, which is cheating the truly needy really more - spending $50,000 
a year on administration of the program in a county or giving away 
$15,000 in meals to people who don't really qualify?  I think it poses 
an interesting dilemma.
TC>CB>Secondly, it is easy to get misled as to which families deserve free
TC>>meals because these very same families are often dysfunctional when it
TC>>comes to budgeting income.
TC>
TC>While being dysfunctional when budgeting income may be a problem it
TC>certainly should not be an acceptable reason for getting a free ride.
TC>Most of America could probably fit into that category when it comes to
TC>prioritizing family income.  I see no problem with helping the truly
TC>poor but if it so they can make their four wheeler payment I personally
TC>have a major problem with the concept.
I think we're getting dangerously close to arguing politics here, not 
educational issues, so I'll make this brief.  I can't think of a program 
run by public sector agencies or private sector businesses that runs 
flawlessly, and that includes the free lunch program run by schools and 
largely funded by the federal government.  I don't believe anyone 
running such a program could satisfy every critic's demand that only the 
*truly needy* (is there just one definition of truly needy?) be served.
TC>CB>If you *really* want to find out how much waste there is in the free
TC>>meals programs, it might be a good idea for someone to do a real
TC>>in-depth analysis across a number of school districts so we could have
TC>>solid figures as to the percent of abuse.  I bet it would involve less
TC>>than 10% of the program's funds, but that's just a guess.
TC>
TC>My guess would be closer to 25 % in this area. That too is just a guess.
TC>I would opt for a simpler solution than doing a study.  Tie the free
TC>lunch to the child's social security number and pump it into the IRS's
TC>computer as income.  The truly poor will not be flagged. The thieves in
TC>the system could be flagged and required to reimburse the system.
Interesting idea.  I'm not sure of it's feasibility, but it is a 
suggestion that might be worth looking into.  Now, if only all of the 
people who lie on their free lunch application will just report all 
income (even cash) on their 1040's, we'll have the problem knocked. ;-)
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A hangover is the wrath of grapes.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------