STATE FEEDING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

IN LONDON

THE opening of the year 1909 saw the end of a long struggle and the rejection of a great principle. Those who contended that voluntary charity could suffice and ought to suffice for the supply of food to necessitous children in the London schools had to confess their defeat, and the cost of feeding was for the first time placed on the rates.

For a great many years the provision of free meals had been carried on in a spasmodic and unsystematic way. Ten years ago a determined effort was made by a party on the School Board to move the Legislature to take over this duty, but it was defeated by a large majority, and the principle was adopted that if an appeal was properly put before the large and benevolent public of London on behalf of hungry children it was sure to be successful, and voluntary contributions would flow in to meet the need. A committee was created, known as 'the Joint Coinmittee for Underfed Children,' whose function was to obtain and record weekly reports from every school of the numbers fed, to see that Relief Sub-Committees' were established in every necessitous school, to urge upon them the duty of enquiry into the home condition of each case so that no child who was underfed should be omitted, and no one admitted who was not really in want, and to be a medium for directing the supply of funds to the quarters where they were wanted. This Joint Committee was to be in close touch with the many associations which existed for collecting contributions for this purpose, and for making grants to the various schools; and it was understood that if any Relief Sub-Committee could not obtain funds by direct application to these associations arrangements would be made for affiliating it to one or other of them, so that in no case should it be possible to complain that the amount of food required for the children could not be procured for want of funds.

This Joint Committee remained at work for seven years, down to July 1907, during which time the present writer had the honour of serving as its chairman, and it published yearly reports giving full particulars as to the number of necessitous schools, of children fed in those schools, and of meals provided, with some information as to the

operations of the major associations for collecting and distributing funds. But all this time the Committee worked under grave disadvantages. It had neither hands nor eyes. No staff was attached to it, and it had no means of enquiry or inspection except the voluntary efforts of its members when they could spare the time. There were 264 necessitous schools on its list in 1905-6, and in dealing with this number of Relief Committees, and about three times this number of head teachers (three departments usually for each school), it had almost no means of communication except by letter and circular. Now if there is one vice deeply ingrained in human nature in the 20th century, and more deeply perhaps in London than elsewhere, it is the vice of casting letters and circulars into the waste-paper basket unread, or, if read, of promptly forgetting them. Many head teachers at first failed to report the number they were feeding, and in some cases the omission continued to the end, so that the real number of these schools was somewhat larger than the recorded figure, 264. The voluntary or non-provided schools at that time felt themselves completely dissociated from the Board Schools, and though invited to communicate and to make use of what assistance the Joint Committee could afford them, the highest number that responded in any year was 35. It was impossible to do anything to introduce greater uniformity or efficiency into the manner of serving the dinners or the kind of food provided, or to do much towards guiding or influencing the Relief Committees; one could only be thankful that they existed and did any work at all. But in spite of these recognised shortcomings, the Joint Committee was able in its last report (July 1907) to declare, as it had done year after year, that no case had occurred in which anyone had applied for funds which could not be granted, and it was believed that practically, though roughly, and sometimes in a quite unsatisfactory way, the worst needs of the hungry children had been met. The season of greatest want was acknowledged to be from January to March, and the dinners seldom opened before November, and were seldom continued long after the Easter holidays, the ordinary period of feeding being from ten to fifteen weeks. The average number of children fed daily during this season varied from 19,000 in 1900-1 to 27,000 in 1906-7. The number of meals, however, was only 2.5 or 2.6 in the week for each child. The Joint Committee were never tired of pointing out that this is an insufficient ratio, and that a child who requires to be fed at all away from home ought to be fed every school day, or at least, on the assumption that in most cases the remains of the Sunday dinner provide for Monday, four times a week. But this instruction hardly bore any effect, for the number of meals given to each child only rose from 2.3 per week at the beginning to 2.6 per week, instead of 4 or 5.

In 1907 the Provision of Meals Act came into force, and at once produced a great change in the situation. The Act was partly obligatory and partly permissive. By the first part it laid on the County Council

a statutory duty to take such steps as they thought fit for the provision of meals for children in attendance at any elementary school,' and empowered them to provide 'furniture and apparatus, and such officers as may be necessary for the organisation, preparation, and service of such meals' at the expense of the rates in other words to provide the eyes and hands for which the Joint Committee had so long been asking in vain. By the second part, Section 3, permission was given, if voluntary funds were unable to meet the cost of food, to raise a rate (with the sanction of the Board of Education) not exceeding one half-penny in the pound to pay for the food.

The County Council resolved not to make use of Section 3, but to rely on the principle which the School Board had laid down, that it was reasonable to expect that the great wealth and benevolence of London, and the pity felt for the hunger of children, would fully meet the demand for voluntary subscriptions. Nor was this expectation disappointed, at least on this occasion. A special fund was started by the chairman which met with large and generous response from many quarters, and amounted altogether to about 12,000l. The ordinary sources which during so many years had contributed to the various associations were not seriously affected by this new drain, and realised nearly as much as they had been estimated to realise in previous years, about 10,000l. Thus the fund for food amounted to more than twice as much as had been available in previous years, and it could be devoted to food alone, whereas formerly equipment and service had to be paid out of it. The financial position therefore seemed to be highly prosperous.

The Council took up at once its duties under the obligatory portion of the Act. The Joint Committee became a Sub-Committee of the Education Committee, with a member of the Council for its chairman, this being necessary in order that he should be able to answer questions and defend the Committee's action in the Council meetings. The Relief Sub-Committees were reorganised under the more attractive name of Children's Care Committees; the clerical department was strengthened and a staff of organisers' and assistant organisers was appointed who could go about and see what was going on, bring things into line and explain the wishes of the central body to the Care Committees and the school staff. This work fell chiefly under two heads, (1) the organisation of the catering, and (2) the creation of bodies of efficient voluntary workers to visit the homes. I shall return to the second point later on. As to the first point, in the majority of cases the dinners had been served in school halls or in class-rooms, and objection was taken to this on account of the smell left behind and the ventilation. In some cases too the dinner room was in a cookshop or coffee shop with unsuitable surroundings, and sometimes the children received the food at a counter, and eat it standing in the street or some open space. By hiring central buildings, such as parish rooms and

mission halls (rather an expensive operation, for in few cases have they been lent gratis) the dinners for two or three adjacent schools have been concentrated, which should lead to some economy in the working. A series of suitable menus has been drawn up under medical advice, each costing 1d.; they are supposed to contain the quantity of proteids which the present state of science considers necessary for proper nutriment, and at any rate they are an agreeable change from the monotonous diet of soup and bread or currant bread which was so common before. These improvements have necessitated the employment of a paid staff to cook the food, clean the floors, lay out and remove the tables, and in many cases to serve the food, though this part of the work is still often performed by voluntary helpers. The cost of equipment, tables and forms, knives, forks, spoons, and crockery, has been considerable, but this will not recur to any large extent except in the case of broken crockery.

The story of this large outlay and of the ample funds in the possession of the Council was soon bruited about and the natural results followed, in an immense increase in the number of meals applied for. Managers who had persistently reported that there was no need for any feeding in their school now drew up long lists of necessitous children, and head teachers who had declared that they were feeding all that were in want and that two or three meals in the week was all the help that the parents desired, now doubled or trebled their numbers and demanded that dinners should be supplied every day. The number of Council Schools classed as necessitous up to 1907 had been 264; it rose to 365 in 1907-8, and reached 446 in March last. The average number of children fed weekly in Council Schools had never exceeded 27,159 before the passing of the Act; it rose to 37,685 in February 1908, and to 41,340 in March 1909. Of the non-provided schools only 27 reported in 1906-7 the feeding of 2513 children; now that the wise liberality of the Council had levelled all distinctions these quondam Cinderellas came in with the rest and 98 of them reported the feeding of 7771 children in March 1908; this year the number has risen to 158 schools with 11,823 children. It is a curious coincidence that the total figure from both classes of schools for March 1909 has been just over 53,000, corresponding very closely to the estimate which was framed after an elaborate enquiry by the School Board in 1898, and which amounted to 55,000. But that estimate was meant to represent the maximum number that could be expected to be in want in an exceptionally hard season.

This increase in the numbers seems to clash with the assertion of the Joint Committee that no instance had occurred in which distress had been known to exist and funds had not been supplied to relieve it. One puts to oneself the question, is the distress greater now than it was then, or did it exist equally then but was undiscovered? The answer is probably that the increased supply has created the increased demand. Formerly the knowledge that the funds were limited induced head

teachers and Relief Committees to confine their requisitions to sums which they seemed likely to get, the inquisition into poverty was stricter, and the line was drawn more severely. When the funds were known to be practically equal to any demand, the line of discrimination was relaxed, and a lower standard of necessity was adopted. A further source of relaxation was that up till now, head teachers or Relief Committees who proposed to start feeding on a new and enlarged basis, had to make the arrangements and do the work themselves. Now they find the labour largely taken out of their hands and a paid staff provided to carry on the work. It is not to be wondered at then if the numbers went up by leaps and bounds, and meals were provided on a scale never known before in London.

Unfortunately there was no corresponding stimulus to increase the influx of voluntary funds. A great effort had been made in the spring of 1908, and large contributions by leading men (such as Lords Avebury, Rosebery, Rothschild, and others) had set an example which was widely followed, but the enthusiasm thus shown could not be excited a second time. When the winter session began after the summer holidays the Council had only about 30007. in hand, which would hardly suffice to meet the bills due to come in up to Christmas time. The Lord Mayor and the Chairman of the Council combined to issue an appeal, and a meeting was held at the Mansion House, but the response was very disappointing, amounting to less than 60007. in all. In the beginning of December it was seen that the voluntary funds in hand were about 24007., while the expenditure' in sight' was 8007. up to Christmas, and 45007. in January. The Council would shortly rise for the Christmas holidays, the application to the Board of Education to sanction the utilisation of Section 3 of the Act would take time, and unless a decision was come to at once the Council might find itself unable to meet its liabilities, and hungry children might be besieging the doors of the dining-halls in vain. It was, therefore, decided that the effort to rely on voluntary subscriptions must be abandoned, and that (with the sanction of the Board of Education) Section 3 of the Act must be put in force and the cost of the food must be placed on the rates.

What was the reason why an appeal which was so munificently met in 1908 failed so completely in 1909? In all probability many causes combined to produce this result. One was the competition of other claims on the charitable purse of the public, and especially the claim of the Italian earthquake, which diverted 130,000l. from home needs. Another was the belief of many that the right course was to devolve the whole expense on the rates, while even among those who were vehemently opposed to this as a matter of policy the belief had spread that the game was up and that sooner or later recourse would be had to

the rates.

But the main reason for this despairing conclusion was the great extent to which the distribution of food had spread, and the large