ED 118 333

TITL°

INSTITUTION

PUB 'DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMMIT RESUME

RC -NILO/68

Migrant,Childrents Nutrition, 1972: Migrant,Childre4# Food Program Failures. Joint 'Hearingb4fore tin Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of theCommittee on Labor and Public'Welfare and ,the SelectCommittee on Nutrition and Humah Needs, United State'sSenate, `9.2d Congress, 2d Session, May 1, 1972.COngress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. SenateCommittee, on Labor and Public Welfare. '

1 May 72300p.; Not availableiin hard cppy due to marginallegibility of ,original document

MF-$0.83 Plus Postage. HC Not lvailable.from EDRS.'Early Childhood; *Family Programs; FederalLegislation; *Federal Programs; Food Service; HealthPrograms; Infants; Lunch Progrhm; *Migrant Children;*Migrant Workers; *nutrition; ProgramAdministration

ABSTRACT v -The'Spbcommittee set, to examine attiiudei and the

administration's response to the hunger and the. alnutrition offarmwOrker children. Somd questions asked were: (1) What Programs hadbeen developed tomeet the food and nutritional needs of farmiorkerfamilies? (2) .Were they properly administered? If not7why not? (3)were there sufficient, funds available? and (4) Was the Nation's

( commitment to the food and nutritional needs of children being metand j.f-not, why not? On May 1, 1972, the Subcommittee heard testimonyfrom a former food program speCialist With the Department ofAgriculture,, Child Nutrition Division on the operations of childnutritid-programs-intended t4 benefit migrant farmworke#9children.'Suppledental information'' presented during the hearing consisted ofinternal 'memorandums, letters, requests from States and reports.Among the topics covered were:: (1) programs azthorized to provide

food assistance for migrant children; (2) food stamp program -

regulations and supplemental material; (1) favily;essistance and themigrant--an analysis of the .0:70 Family Assistance Act ,to determine

'its effectiveneSs in serving 'the migrant population and to recommendlegislative. changes and,regulatiot language;fand (4) migrants andtheir problems with the Federal Food .Assistance programs. (NQ)

I

#

-4

It

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal.unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** tow obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ** reproduCibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ** of the microfiche and'hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ** via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not e

'* responsible for the quality of the original document. ReproddctiOns ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.° ************************************************************************

MIGRANT .CHILDREN'S NUTRITIO

!PST Cgr: AMIABLE

JOINT flEARING

4RECEIVE!

FEB 1 1973NMSU

E. R .1. C.

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATORY LABOROF THE

IIVIVIMAITE ON LABOR TAND PUBLIC WELFAREAND THE

SELJCT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITIONAND HUMAN NENDs

UNITED STATES; SENATE'NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

AfIGRANT CHILDREN'S FOOD 'PROGRAM FAILURES

r-i SECOND SESSION. 'C:1

MAY .1, 1972

1 P 1

us DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-, DUCED EXACTLY. AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED-130 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

1

5

Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and P bile Welfare

U.B. GovnrontruNT PRINTING OFFICE86-201 WASHINGTON : 1072

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND .PUDLIC. WELFARE- ( HARRISON A. WILLIAB18, ,IR., New Jersey, ChairmanJNNINGS ItANHPLPII, We Virginia JACOB IC. JAVITS,(New Yo4CLATEORNE PELL, Rhode Island PETER II. DOMINICK, ColoradoEDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massuelcautts RICHARI) 8, SCHWEIKER, Pons), 'Tani&GAYLOB,D ,NELSON, Wisconsin ' BOB PACKWQOD, OregonWALTER F. IliONDALE, Minnesota ROBERT TAFT, Sri., OhioTHOMAS F. 4A.GkETON, Missouri J. GLENN BEALL, JR., Maryland.ALAN C RANEITtilN, California ROBERT T. STAFFORD, VermontHAROLD E. HUGHES, IowaADLAI E, STEVENSON III, Illinois ft a

f ,...,STEWART E. AlClArRE, Staff Director

Roam E. NAGLE, Cene,ral Counsel,,,. i' Roi l'E' NYILLENSON, Minority Staff Directorvv

. / E t= sr MITTELMAN, Minority Counsel% /7

\atJtCOMMITTEE ON MI ATOAY LABORADLAI E. STEVENSOIVIII, Illinois, Chairman -

IIARRIE302,1 A. WILLIAMS, Js New Jersey BOI3ERTITAFT, Jai, OhioWALTER F. krOliDALE, Minnesota .,3". GLENN BEALL, JR.Narykind,EIIWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ' JACOB K. DAVITS, New YorkHAROLD E, HUGHES, Iowa

Enacts* C ENTa0Y, CORRUIEUGENE MUTE MAN, Minority Counsel

c

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION ANDItIUMAN NEEDSGEORGE MCGOVERN, South Dakota, Chairman

HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia ,PHILIP A. HART; MichiganWALTER F. MONDALE,' Mints otaEDWARD M. KENNEDY, Ma9sacluisettsGAYLORD NELSON, WisconsinALAN CRANSTON, CaliforniaHUBERT XI. HUMPII.REY, Minnesota

CHARLES II. PERCY, Illinois tMARLOW IV, COOK, KentuckyROBERT DOLE, KansasHENRY BELLMON, Oklahoma,RICHARD 8. SCHWEIKER,ROBERT TAFT, JR., Ohio

KENNETH Schossmo, Stiff Director(IER.om S. J. CASSIDY, Gefieraf Counsel

(14

t_

4

ti

1

t ly

oNTEk..T.S

STIAMerE-4 A /*Al,/ #

MONDAY, Mkei,

Levin, Marvin, formerly food progrrn apeoialikkOcith child NutritionDivision, U.S. Departinent.of Agricultiars. 2"

APPENDICE.8

Apr ziitux I

gichibits submitted by Marvin Lit.vin, formerly food program specialistwithlhe Child Nutrition Divisions U.S. Department of Agriculture (28 .

items) , , 19-59

APPENDIX IIr .Programs authorized 'to provide food assistance for migrant children

(prepared by the staff cif the Seject Committee on Nutrition and HumanA

Is) 61-79.

APPENDIX, III .. . ,

Food stamp progranUPublic Law 91-671) regulation, and*supplementalmaterial 81-190

APPENDIX IV

Family assistance, and the migrant

% APPENDIX V 0

Migrants and their problems with the -Federal, tied assistance programsand supplemental information 211400

mu.

a

.1

-MIGRANT CHILDREN'S NUTRITION, 1972

AONDAY, MAY 1, 1972

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEt ONMIGRATORY LABOR OF -THE COMMITTEE ON

LABOR AND Puma WELFAIM ,

AND THE SELECT COMMITTEE ONNUTRITION. AND HUMAN NEEDS,

- tilrash ington, D.C.The'subcoMmittee met, pursuant to notice

'..at 10 tompiii room 6226,

New Senate Office Building, .Senator Adlai.E.Stevenson HI, presiding.Present: Senator Steitenson (presiding).Staff members present: Boren Chertkov; counsel to the ,Migratory

Labor Subcommittee; .Eugene Mittelman, minority 'counsel; andNancy Aniadei, professional staff member of Select Committee on..Nutrition-and-Haman Needs. ,

Senator. STEVENSONi This joint meeting of the Subcommittee onMigratory Labor of the Senato Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare and the Select gommittee on Nutrition and: Human, Needswill come to order.

This morniag we will hear testimony from an expert in the Depart,.ment of Agriculpire food and nutrition prOgrants.which Were intended'by the Congress to benefit farmworker laminas.

That many migtant families suffer froth malnutrition and hungerhas been clearly established by these respective Committee's and bymany others over the. years.

The food and nutritional needs of migrant farmworker,,children'tias.no gone unnotieed by the Congress. Among other things, moneyshave; een 'made available undstreetion 13 of the National SchoolLunch Act, totaling some '$49 rliilliun for fiscal year 1972. These.funds could be used to feed presrinvol ehildren of larmworkers; butit appears that the adtmitiistration. has -seen fit to freeze some $13million of the $49 million, foreing funds that were' intended for usein the duration of eltildren to 1, used for the feeding of children.

Thisluvaringis intended to examine the attitudes' and the responseof this administration to the hunger and the malnutritiola of farm4

, worker children. .

Some hard questions should be asked. What programs have beendeveloped to meet the food and nutritional needs of larmviorkerfamilies?

Are they properly administered? If not, why not?.

Are there sufficient funds available?Is the Nation's commitment to the food and nutritional needs of

children being met and, if not, why not?

Our witness this mdrning is Mr. Marvin Levin, formerly iroodprogram specialist with the Department of Agriculture,

Ile is intimatelv familiar with the operations of iild nutrition,programs intended to-benefit migrant farm wqrker children.

1 am very grateful, to him for joining us this morning.

STATEMENT OF MAliVIN LgVIN, FORMERLY FO,OD PROGRAM SPE=LIST WITH THE CHILD NUTRITION DIVISION, U.S. DEPART -IMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman;-members of the coramittee,,iny nameis 'Marvin Levin. Through April 28,- I-was a food program specialistfor the Child Nutrition Division of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. .

In tlitit position, I was inyolved with quAtions of food programexpansion and quality.

'rior .to joininn. the USDA, I was empl9yed as office manager,contract, officer, and consultant in foreign and domestic childuutritionprograms by Sidney,,,,M.-Cantor Associates, an internationally. knownconsulting:, firm in the field of food and nutrition.

'Immediately preceding that; I was in India with CARE, where Iadministered two State child nutrition prog,rains whiCh, in additiontdother services, provided a hot lunch to more than 2 million childrendaily.

o .

I have- recently _joined tlie staff of CARE and will be leavingtomorrow for Bangladesh where, on loan to 'UNICEF, I will assist insetting,up a famine relief and a countrywide child nutrition prograiri.

The story I have come ,to tell this morning is not one of dramatic --intrigue or high-level. political eonspirttey; I know of no plot to pro-mote the continued hunger of ritigrant and other needy children. Thestory to be told is much more mundane; it is an account of bureaucraticinefficiency, of mismanagement, of ineptitude, of a pervasiveeven-

, if not conscious - insensitivity to. the needs of poor pliildren and thedemands imposed on those wher hwe to feed there

In any -case, the effect is the'skte Ait might be if there were acomer in. plan- to keep Oiese childven hungry.

If the prograins intended to feed the children (16 not accomplishthat goal, it-makes little difference whether the effect has been intended,.

I am not here to assign the blame to one political partyyather thananother-. The problems I describe aredeeply rooted and no doubtexisted before the present administration took office. I am testifyingout of a deep personal concern for the fate of the migrant dill in oursociety. More than that, I .ain here because I believe.. that there is cob

more than ample documentation that the method and manner inwhich the Department of Agriculture has chosen to implement andinterpret the National. School Lunch -Act, and the °Child NutritionAct, have been especially detrimental to Migrant children andprobably (fMrimenta l. to most needy children.

Within the course of this hearing, I expect to present evidence that(1) 016 Department of Agriculture is not meeting the needs of themigrant children within the capabilities already established Int. law,(2)- The Department, of Agriculture is insensitive to the special andwidely- recognized prbblems of migrant children; (3) The practice's of

ti

3

the.. Department of Agriculture have adverse' affected programsestablished for migrants by other Federal agencies. and (4) The De-partment of Agriculture's poor record of assistan to migrant andother needy children is primarily theAresult of int al factors ratherthan a result of inadequate legislation.

.

The documentation that .accompanies my .st ement is in, mostinstances.applicable.to non-migrant .ehildren.as we b It the examples tused in this statement are taken primarily fromp. g that group.

I .will conclude my testimony with A .few suggestions for how Ii

'think the situation could be improved. ., - . c .

When I was 'first invited to comment, I had some hesittetlin.- D.recognize that my testimony today may jeopardize my future Teltian-ship with respect to .Federal. employment. 1 decided that I could not.leave without speaking and testifying willingly in the hope that my ., comments and-my experience may be used to improve the programsintemled to benefit these children4 The plight of -these children hasbeen ,'too oncn ignored, too often sacrificed. to questions of', personalconvenience. I welcome. the 'opportunity to stify this morning andwill be happy to answer questions when I h e.finished.

My first, comments p ill relate to the ju went that the needs ofa

migrant childien are not being met to the' extent possible under existinglegislation. iI do not Died to remind the members of this committee that migrfmtfamilies conAtute a particularly needy group. While median familyincome for most Americans was $8,600 in 1971, thp average income ofmigrant families was lAS than $3,600, and their families consisted ofan average of eight person'.. ,t-

By any Federal poverty measure, migrants must be counted.aniong

our most needy.While employment hasibeen a ,problem even for skilled workers iri

recent months, for the migrant it has been Particularly acute andgrowing worse; but even among the migrants, the children suffer themost. , ,

Ono. of the agencies; responsible for alleviating the. crushing life mi.-ditionq ©f migrant children ,is the Food and Nutrition Service of theDepartment of Ag,rieultiire, particularly the (Ibild Nutrition Division.The most obvious indication that thelPood and Nutrition Service isnot meeting the food needsof migrant children may be seen in the feat,that other Federal agencies, responsible for other, nonfood aspects ofthe migrant child's life, are forced to divert large portions of their., budgets from. these other areas, for example, education, into foodassistance.

. .At the present times three Federal agencies support' programs for4 migrant children. They are currently spending from eight to ten per-

-. cent of their budgets on food service. . $

It is not, unreasonable to assume that none of these other agencies, or4 .

their grantees, would budget their ,scarce financial resources for food.service if alternative sources of funds were available for that purpose.The alternative source of funds is the Food and Nutrition Service.But .the Food and Nutrition. Service is not 'providing the necessaryfunds, and thus is not meeting thd needs of these migrant. children.

,. 14 fact, a major factor involved in the use of migrant program funds,'',for food service is that the Food and Nutrition Service is too uncertainin quantity and quality. Bpcause food seryio is considered essential to

. .,

the operation and success of Migrant programs for children, J-t Is'necessary to divert or block migrant funds.for food. Thus, .we find that

title I migrant funds in the Office of Education go' for food rather thanschool equipment or teacher salaries. . ..

The second point I would mike is that,Food and' Nutrition Serviceinsensitivity oto the particular prbblems of migrants has resulted insome extremely adverse effects. consider the following examples:

1. The Food and Nutrition Service has been repeatedly advisedthat the parent4 of most migrant children are functionally illiterate,that yearly incomes of migrant families are almost impossible toestimate, that school and other officials'have found that parents must

: come to the school or a social worker must visit the home to conductinterviews in order to reconstruct family income. A plications sub-mitted without interviews are often so incorrect as to o meaningless.

ffiAnd yet,. ocials even in areas considered politically .onservative---

pi

have almoSt without exception ultimately certified' these childreneligible for free meals .hteause they are inevitably found to be eligible.

Asa result- of these' factors, the Department has beencArged- toauthorize categolieal certification for migrant children s that. in --dividual applications are not necessary. -The Food and Nutrition .

Service has been assured that agricultural migration is an otcupational. grouping, with known income levels and that authorizing categoricalcertification for migrants does not.open the door to categorical certifi-cation for non-poor or not similarly identifiable groups.

In fact, the Departments of Labor sand Hettlth, Education, andWelfare,.the Office of Economic Opportunity, and-48 States recognizemigrants as a special group. The response of the Food and NutritionService to recommendations in favor of categorical certification has

'been silence. .,

2. An amendinent to th6 National School Lunch Act in 1970 pro-vides that a 1peal school may certify -a .child as eligible for free orreduced-price Itmehes on the basis of factors other than those required.for formal application or categorical certification.,

TO date, however, the Food and Nutrition Service has not issuedinstructions or guidelines for such types of certification, and schools .are understandably reluctant to use -this provision for fear of notleaving an audit trail. ,Recommended guidelines were submitted tothe Food and Nutrition Service, and the Food and Nutrition Servicewas advised that issuance of these guidelines or a variation of themwould be of special advantage to migrant and Indian children. Todate, there has been no response. ,- 3. The Food and Nutrition Service prepares hundred4 of sample--.......menus, Four months ago, the Food and Y4utrition service was advisedthat hutch attendance in schools with large numbers of 'Meticaii

.. American chiltirqn increased markedly when Mexican food is served,and it waAeyommended that the tecimical service staff be askedto develop meffirs. for Mexican American children. To date, the tech-nical services staff has received no such request.

This w ( ;as'a case where no funding was involved. -..-4. HEW has officially requested that migrant children in title I

Elementary and Secondary Edueation Act of 1965 migrant programs. be categorically certified as eligible for a free lunch. Title I fonds are

only available to schools with high proportions,. of specially needyyoungsters. Because of their great need, migrant children' may be

4.

- .

served under both regular title I, and title I migrant funds. Althoughthe Fopd and Nutrition Service has inforthed -the Bureau of IndianAffairslhat State agencies may categorically certify Indian childrenunder title -I, no decision has been reached on permission for suchcertification for migrant children. °

5. It ha; been emphasized to the food 'and Nutrition-Service thatthe serious nutritional deficits found among migrant children demandthe establishment of a high priority for such children to be coveredin the breakfast..and special food service programs. Both school' andchurelt officials have emphasized the need for greater assistance. Onechurch official reported that the need for a breakfast program was sogreat that lie spenthis own limited funds to provide it.

In the area under jurisdiction, migrant children were found tohave cases of ulcerated stomachs due to extreme malnutrition. Yet,the Food and Nutrition Service has taken no actions to meet this veryspeet4a1 need.

6. Finally, a reconimendation was made to the Food and Nutritionservice hat it actively atteinpt to find alternative ways of meetingthe needs of 'migrant children sineeln view of the reported needsand the apparent lack of traditional facilities easily accessible to,and able to assist these ehildrenconventional outlets are inadequate._Again, silence.

These examples, I believe, illustrate insensitivity. The needs ofmigrants have been amply doeumented 111 testimony before thesecommittees and elsewhere, and they have been made known repeat,edlv to. the. Food and Nutrition Service. If the legislative authorities. .are inadequate -and I do not believe that to be the case the Foodand .Nutrition Service should have retoinmended flew legislation.Once again, there has been no response: no new legislation has beenrecommended.

The third point that I wish to make is that the Food- and NutritionService practices, which limit the availalfliltv of funds for foodservice, have resulted in adverse effects in tlie migrant programsadministered by other Federal agencies:. To many migrants, it appears that the Food and Nutrition Service

is at least indifferent to their needs and possfigy intent on going. out.of its 'way to create difficulties for them. Pesrsonally, I feel that theprob.lf:in is one of perspective; that is, the Food and Nutritioh ServiceIms simply divided the country into need and nonneedy, and hasapplied an averaging approach to both halves with little concern forthe smaller units in cash half. In this process of averaging, however,the Food and Nutrition Service has undermined and weakened theprograms of other agencies. Consider the following examples:

1. The new special food service proixram,--section 13 of the NationalSchool Lunch Actregulations divide the avaiLlble funds intosummer June, July, and August, and year-roupd fiffids. ,

Programs for migrants, in response- to yelisly migratiOnsonust'begin at many points during a year.

Thus, an application for a' program in April is found ineligible forsummer .funds, and- can in any' case not be approved beektuse byApril, the year -Found funds. have already been conunitted. Therefore,unless tin Sponsoring agency wishes and is able -,to provide or divertfunds intended for other essentials, the programS must operate with-out food service.

6

2.- Local sponsors of migrant -programs may conduct good opera-tional wrtgrams but bo incapable of conducting the extenskve corre-

-spondence required by the Food and NutOtion Service.Sponsors of -migrant programs require a special form of persevft,

ance. Jest this year, one local sponsor applied for assistance and was.ona.made t place separate applications with seven State and regional

offices. Six of the States approved the application; the. seventh Stateand the regional Office (lid -not. Another sponsor had to apply to 11offices and with a similar result.

The children come from and move to many. tates in the course of a-year. By refusing to grant categorical eligibility to migrant children,the Food and Nutrition Service has placed amextremely heavy admin-istrative burden on. the sponsors least capable of carrying it.

Because of the inflexibility of Food and Nutrition Service programs,all 'migrant and program efforts are weakened by the diversion oftheir funds into rood services, and all ifidivitlual program sponsors aremade to spend inordinate amounts .of time in the application pro -'cedures. The continued high level of diverted funds by the agencies ofthe IIEW and OE() will ifot diminish until Food and Nutrition Servico-food funding is guaranteed.

The fourth point I would like to make concerns methods ofoperation.

There are several internal factors inhibiting the delivery of adequateservice. The first one is data collection.

Essential to the establishment or implementation, of an informedprogram is the possession of reliable data. During my work in theunderdeveloped countries, I frequently envied the U.S. data-gathering,process. Unfortunately, the data disseminated by Food an NirtritionService, despite all of the advantages of data processing and collecting,is of extremely poor quality. Several factors contribute to this.

First, Food.and Nutrition Service requests data which it ig impos-sible for the States to j.eliver, either because the Food and NutritionService has failed to efine its terms or because the States lack theresources to make specialized determinations. For. example, twice ayear, the States are requested to estimate the number of childreneligible for free or reduced price lunches, and twice a year, the Foodand Nutrition. -Service publishes these figures- and others whichindicate that in some cases States provide more free or reduced-pricemeals than them are eligible children. Wo know that( these figures aremisleading and that it results from failure of the Food and NutritionService to define "needy," and the inability of the States to makereliable estimates.

HEW solves these problems by providing the States with countyestiTates of the number of needy children. The poverty StatisticsDivision of Census and of HEWagencies whose expertise lies thearea of data collecting and povertyfeel that States estimates areunreliable and that totals can more acc,nrately bo determined fromWashington with.fme adjustMents being made at the State level.

Second, the improbable statistics resulting from these requests areaccepted and-almost never questioned. A statewide examination of theFood and Nutrition Service Monthly- or special tables. reveals someinteresting, discrepancies. 'rho special food service program table,covering August 1971, and .dated October 22, 1971, shows thatMichigan had an average daily summer attendance of 1,024 children.

10

7Yet, Detroit 'alonewhich is considered by most to be a patt ofMichigan,estiMated that 30,000 to 50,000 children participate4 in itssummer program.

The most unfortunate aspect of poor data collection is its impact onprogram planning. The unreliable estimates of eligible ehildren in thefirst example are used as target figures. The unreliable reports 9fprogram participation are used asstimates for program needs. Failureto adequately document program.- expenditures has frequently in-hibited program expansion.

For exapaple, in October 1971,) the Teas Migrant Council. appliedto the. Texas regional office for participation undor the special roodservice program.

Mthough the regional office determined that the council waseligible -and required ofsistaneet approval was withheld because theregional office believed all their $810,000 appr priation. had beencommitted. Five months-later, Food and Nutria Service 'informedthe regional office that on the basis of our eptimat s from their data,'I exits was spending at a rate of $607,000 annually an lid In fact have,--- -Nadequate funds for the council. Thus a necessary program was blocked"for 5 months because the'Food and Nutrition Service lacked clearinformation on how much money it was spending.

Finally, data to facilitate the expansion of programs to new groupsis intentionally not collected, In order to plan a program for migrantchildren based on probable needs, I attempted August 1971, toformally gather information on the size, locations, and dates of currentparticipatitii. by,migrant children. The letter to the.Statti requestingthe informatirin never left 'the Food and Nutrition Service because,as the note attached to. the letter indicated, "the climate is not right."

The second internal factor influencing program operation is ad-ministration. ills difficult to imagine that a privatb business organi-zation could nc ninistratively as the Food and Nutrition

set up tn,be profitmakmg o 'nation. Nevertheless, the lack of aService does., Admittedly, e apartment of Agriculture was not

profit motive does not have to preclude efficient administration.Though the Food and Nutrition Service has established goals for

Melt it has no systematic plap as to priorities, time schedules, andmethods of operation. Without. these specifics, its resources are need-lesslytdissipated. It failed to make the .requests which are logical andrealinkin terms of the !capabilities of its subordinate organizations.

FM. A'ample, in response to Public Law 91-248, whielfrequired thatthe States submit State plans of operation for Food and Nutrition .

Service approval, the Food and Nutrition Service resurrected a planprocedure dating back to the middle 1950's, a plan which had sub-sequently been abandoned. because it was not operational. Havingfailed in 1950, there was'...iao reason to suspect that it would work in1970.

The resurrected plan required the States to provide voluminousstatistical data on current and future plans of operation. Probgbly.because much of the data requested in the plan had in `one form oranother already been submitted to the Food and Nutrition Service inother slocunients, or perhaps because the States were aware that planapproval did not convey any funding authority. or, perhaps becausothe States felt that they could not legitimaktly plan a program untilthe Food and Nutrition Service provided them with data on funds and

ii

S ,

possible 'legislative .changes,.. the quality was not ,particularly gdotl.Most of the State plans had to be returned at leastpmie tor correetion%.

Aside from generating a fantastic amount of ()Mee work, and fulfillinga legal requirement'', albeit inapprOpriately,,th ere has been no noticeableresult. The response of those work* on the State plans is worth .noting: "I really don't klyiw what 'appraval' means."

Still, in addition to these-and otlier, limitations, the Food and Nutri-tion Service has tiled to establish andl_allocate administrative responsi-bility. It has been estimated that rObp,thly 80 percent of the work .of 'a

I'

pallet-du section within the idid and Nutrition Service is taken upwith correspondence.

A number of people, including myself have estimated that theaverage cost of merply.writing. a letter is more than $55 and that in ...spine cases, this figure may rise to $2,000.- These costs are so highbecause, among other factors, employees earning. $16,000 to $20,000in salaries frequently spend more than half their time proofreadingletters written by staff members =a task. which could be performed. bya good seeretar,y.. f . 1

Not onkr does the Fo 1 and Nutrition Service needlessly squander,resources through ad thistrative inefileieney, it fails to allocateresources to implement stated and mandated goals. For examPle,The Departilient of Apiculture established a Deputy AtlinfnistraAorwith the assigned responsibility of outreach. This followed on the 1071amendments to the Food Stamp Act, requiring that all States imple-ment outreach activities,

. However, the newly assigned Administrator has t been providedwith any staff to acriomplish hiti_responsibilities.

There is no systematic plan within thy Departm -int a, to where it iSgoing, what its priorities are, what it intends to aeeomplisli in a givenperiod of time, and how it will go about accom,plishing its. goals..Admittedly 'the Department has established goals. But goit?,s unrelatedto any systematic approach once again dissipate resources Willa() not

. promote normal efficiency. .T .A final exam Rple concerns theUnited Presbyterian Women's AssociAl-

tion monitoring'program, a proLiect with which I was involved. In aneffort to keep on the 'good side' of -these ladies, the Departmentsipiandered wliat I would estimate to be more -than $210,000 in proces-sing 41. worthi6ss school lunch survey. In the, process, we ireatedunnecessary work for the States irml alienated many ottl;ose involved.Having met 'and worked with the ladies responsible for this suryev, rbelieve they wouldas they finally didaCcept the fact that tfileirproject should have b en abandoned and the money pur to better use.

Many more exam is of poor administrative practices could begiven. .

Uowever,' more competent .sourees Ilaye commented on Goverranentadministrative problems,problems, and I do not "wish to-belabor the pointfurther. ., .-4\

The third internal factor Mr-icing the operation of these programs..mist be described as the "politicizing," (if proi!',rams.'

Regardless a the personal politics of the gentlemen present today,. I would-assume that we all agree. that the role of program adininisTra-lion should be apolitical. Nevertheless, lower level officials within theFood and Nutrition Service Ore) making political decisions which shouldbe lesery or poi "cal appointees. A measure. of the extent toward'

,. . .

8

it

12

ft

.A - Q

t ,.0 % 0

whi RI tie Food and lS/iitrition Service has been pOliticimdIs indichted.

in the following examples.: -.Administrative personnel personn el el ,preparing evaluation reports

. 'on lastLsummees:peci&ifooc4.servieeflatoomere_itegtrtited,-to, -.--ernpliasize -fhb negative aspects.olthe.summer programs. These.rePortsin summary,. form wore. preented ,to Congress as partial justification ..,for limitingandrestrueturing summer operations( - -. . ..- - ,

A Meinoer of Congress' requested that the Food and Nutrition Serv-icec.q.ovia,inforniation on the number of year-round. applicatiOns for..."7 special foo4 service progranrwhichthe ''ood anal-Nutrition'Servicewas holding itisabeyance due to lack 'of -funds: ,It was known what

i. information he Congressman wanted'. However, it was arso knownthat thedecisionvia4rsdid not want' to 'ask Congress for more-funds."If.waS therefere, d.ec-c ed/at. a ydry low administrative level to respondto 4e. Congressman by Answering his question literally::-

-Since'the Food and Nutrition Service only administers, the Special .,--. . .special food service pro_gram in some of the States, -it -attempts t4,..:.;respond by providing Vow ;infolTnation only on those StateS. directly'administered. by-the Department of Agriculture;4hereb.y leaving theimplication that piesent fUnda Were adequate and, pro'viding .a dehber- ..ately misleadingninswer to the Congreasnian. -*".,- ,The- same Congressman later sent the' Food and Nutrition Service a, :.letter clarifying .10 foriner..request by, asking for- ?data' on pendingap*plicationsheld by..both Ybod and Nutfition ServiZte and the States.We got around this One .byprOviding him with data can what was beingheld but not on What was committed.. Had he been proilded with-cdmplete information, it _woad have.been apparent that we' requiredmore. funds. As at was, there was no way that the Congressman could.

-determine from the infornition provided 'how :much money was-, t eeded. . .;.; A . :,

. .,Jn. one instaned, an adnunistrativ,e officer was requeSted to discoss.tprogram deliVery with other-Federal agencies Spoiksoring programs fof

migrant children. AS '6, result of their,..iliscuskons, drafts., of possibleinteragency agreements were prepared. If signed by boinePartments,.;-good ,Oordination between the ageno.ies wouldhave-rested. for the'first time.. . 0 :,

.1k- . ..

)Although the other- Federal agencies direetlY responsible:. for a,...migrant program were Willing to sign tbeitcgreement,,the Department7:, QtAgriculture was.not, andretioned the agreement-to the adminigtr -tiVe officer-with' the note-that in View of the funding situation =an

---quete-et's hold this one,'" : r, . -Additional funds in this case were not atAssue;:bufilither the fear,-of

developing a procedure which might reSult.inlprograin expansion.,The Food !and:. Nutrition Ser'vice WM,. -called upon to .testify.on ..

summer funding needs. finder -the spetial feod summer program: Duringafter the. testimony, the Food and giitrition'SerVice statedthitt onthe basis of field audits it was estimated that More than 50 percent' Of

-the recipients receiving assistance under the sDecial fOodSummerpro-.gram were.. adults.. The statement was -- based,on..0I0 'audits, which'constituted onlY-Otie7xth of the total .number of ltidits- performed. ..

kTlae, audits performed b; the seqtion 'responsible for performance,.do not confirm. the, 0IG. conclusions can ',adult participation...One could-enly.sUppose that, the purpose of Citing .tliA 0-10 audit.iiisead of theprn6.ary aduit was to leave Congress with the impression thatthings

A 3

'

10) - . -.. Nb6 1y .

. e, 1

undermining..we e much worse than was jhe case, therepy poa.sibly ,,so e of the support for program: Once'agaiii, many more examplescoluldl be given. These-examples, however, are intended only to showthat lie apparentlyikpoliteal officials are4sking.,- political decisionswhit may or wy not correspond to the a mi'nistration's thinking.--

Ge tin:ten; Thave-tried to be,,exact and.to docum,ent my testimonyadequately. in spite i-J _this, It am sure that the Food and.NittritionService= iill find explanations and iationalizations fog anyeitgiysfatements. However, it cannot ration4ize or explain why th programs

othalt it,admiiiisteis neger work the "way we all ek-pectAem. o. . ......0It cannot explain theecontinuous general public critrcism bout the , ,4.

implementation of the programs. Nor can it explain why a programwhich,Congress has so consistently supported and which the pliblic soobviously hkes, runs into multiple problems% when administered ky theFood Wand Nutrition Seririce,

, The problem withthe Food and Nutrition Service is systemic. Even. if all. of my recommendations are gollo*ed, the system will not be

sufficiently changed. To (1,6 that requires a total ,overhaul. However,., even if system change- does riot occur, perha.ps the programs will be

better ableto serve migrant. children. To MIisLend;Pofter the following.recommendations: , .

First, The Department of Agritultde all the Food -and NutritionService shoiild categorize migrants, and perhaps other occupational

; groups, as a special target group. .

Second. Migrant children should be mad categorically eligible forfive hinches. , ye.

?Third. The Departmenk of Agriculture should systematically andregularly-collect, analyze, tind publish data specifically related tomigrants which would enable the various divisions of the Food anNutrition Service to render, maximum service to migrant children andadults.

Fourth. If funds continue to be limited.? then a system of prioritiesmust lie established: At the very least, otgbing, program§ designed to_serge migrant children and other needy children such as fiettelstartand title I of ESEA, Should receive special consi4eration. .

Fifth. The Food and Nutrition Service should: be required. to.prepareand' submit to Congress a gederal 'Nan of-operation which among otherthings would specify- Nyh`eh 1Ws, where it is goingrhow it plans to getthere, When different goals will' tie reached, and what priority it isgiving to the component -)arts of its plan:

Sixth.Th.e`Food and Nutrition Service should be required to adeptuniform poverty' gnideliries that are both internally ,consistent andconsistent with the guidelines set by the Census Bureau, and the 0E0..They are in the poverty business and the Department 'Of Agriculture'is net, .

Seventh. en the Food and Nutrition Service i$ unable to providereliable data, the function of data gathering:should be given to anotherservice, agency, fir department. e . .

Eighth: Ideally, Congress should set and publish statdards forparticipation in the school breakfast program and SFSP. JUst as the

. participation of any school in the breakfast program is.possible if theschool meets established requirements, the participation of any schoolor institution in the breakfast and special food summer. program should

H

a

. /be possible if the sch institution meets the standards set for theseprograms. -

Ninth. In, order to assist all needy children, the Food and Niitrition-8

Service should-have the authority to 'go outside of education channels .

and. either-workWith other State agencies, or directly administer foodprograms. For example, in certain types of.nonschool situations, it may_be better to work with the Welfare Department or Health Departmentor,, where these, agencies do not exist, operate programs directly orthrough community groups.. .

Tenth. Reports covering all applications denied due to' ltk offunds should be submitted to Congress on a regulav'basis,,and budge'trequests should reflect these unmet needs.

'Eleventh. Finally, one imm.e late goal shOuld be to make the FoodErrd Nutrition Service pr ain more responsive to needs. It ma3r'bethat recognized and/or registered nonprofit organizations should beinvited to partidipate in Federal nutrition programs.

n also convinced that private nonprofit organizations would.succeed in lowering the overall program cot while improving theprogram quality. .At the very' least, and prior to any legislative change., Congressshould request that the Food and Nutrition Service select severalof the national or international nonprofit private organizations alreadyiii, the nutritional field and have theni evaluate the potential role andcontribution that nonprofit private organizations .could make in theFood and Nutrition Service programs. The operational demands of anexternal agency could have a greater effect on the administrativeaspects of the Food find Nutrition Service than a managerial consultingfirm.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunityl-ou have givenme to appear here today, and I hope that the joint efforts of the-WOcommittees involved here today will produce much needed advances .

for the children of our Nation's migrant and seasonal farmworkers,as well as all other children that must have, as a matter of right, theopportunity to reach his full potential, obtainable only with a fullynutritious diet. . ,

Senator STEVENSON. I hope so, too, Mr. Levin; and I thankyou very much for helping us this morning with your excellent state-ment:

You said at the outset that you had some concern that your state- .ment might jeopardize future opportunities for your 'Federal employ-ment: I hope that is not the case, and I would certainly hope that nocivil servant would suffer retribuyfon for efforts such as yours to Co-operate with the Congress and as in this case, to help people in oursociety who need it

Havit other public officials in the Department of .Ariculture beenpenalized for; raising issues such as you have this morning?

Mr. LEVIN. I can think of ogee gentleman in the Fogd StampDivision who atten5led a migrant conference 2 or 3 years ago. He saidsomething which resulted in far greater outreach to the migrants. Hehas-not been permitted to travel- or be involved_ with migrants formore than 2 years._

Apparently, the regional office was offended and filed a complaintwith the office here in Washington:

15.

12.

iXrator,STpvENsorr. V(?hat did he say that was so offensive; do you

`Mi. LEVIN. He suggested eplan of operation which resulted in

The regional office apparently did not feel that he should have .

ade this recortunendatioir, even,thon h it did work.I attended a, meeting later on in which the,rnigrant organizationaised 'the 'gentleman for having ina,d hat suggestion, and yet here

!greater benefits going to the program participants.

IS a case of a man trho =was_remov from the migrant project.Senator.STEvExsoN. Are you suggesting 'he was. penalized because

of his s3rnapathy for migrants, or in this case, for speaking gut of place.: or both? Should he have made suggestions quietly and internally,and not publicly?

Mr. LEviN.Tossibly both. : ,.:

' Senator STEVENSON. Are there many such examples that you are - -

familiar With within the Department of officials being punished for,speaking out? - - ,

MP. LEVIN. Ngt punished. I am aware of cases in various divisionsof people. who' have .Spoken out, or tried to, and :who feel that' theircareer has been 'drastically changed:

.-.

.

I do know of one gentlerdan.:4ho considered working with one ofthe committees as an official assignment. Ile was informed that%thismight. jeopardize his career.

enator STEVENSON. Do you know,whether many others.wiiiiiin theDepartment of Agriculture share your own conctirns about the dangersof speaking out? , :,

Mr. LEVIN. I canink of others that do,Senator STEvmrsoN. How would you characterize the morale within

the Food and Nutrition Service?Mr. LEVIN. .I have never worked with an organization where 1

lave seen so many people frying to. get out of it. [Audience reaction.}rft is true. Of course, with the Government employment freeze

currently in existence, it is difficult to move. And Government jobsdo offer 'a great deal .,of security.. I doilot know that TWould be speakiniout, very frankly, if I had agreat deal of vested interest, -..

. But I would .say there arocertainly many unhappy,' very frustrated ii.

peoplOwithin FNS; they really do not know what to do: '_ 1.:',

One thing I will say, I am im ressed with the quality of personnelwithin the organization; and I ink because it does have such highquillity people there, they .sons the need; they are very receptive)but feel totally pthverless to do anything. 4

Sentor STEVENSON Maybe that is the trouble, not enough medi-ocrity? [Laughter.]

s Senator STEVENSON. Is there a high turnover rate fmong the em-plo.Vees at FNS? '''

Mr. 'LEVIN. Within the last year, since the:freeze it has been muchless; but even while I have been there, we have had a reasonably high `5-"

attrition rate. ,I do not knoikr how to compare it against the rest of the 'services,

but it struck me as being rather high. Certainly in terms of the numberwho would like to transfer out, it is extremely high.

Senator STtvENsorr. You stateti in your prepared st tement t"In order to assist 'all needy children, Food. and Nutr ion Ser iceshould have the authority to go outside of education cha inels.",

13*

Does it not now Have that autholity? Congressional, authcrityis not-required; is*? It is an administrative authority, is that not'.'right? i .

- Mr IiVeViN. It is required to work with the State e,dueatiorial i :.agenCies, but in # sense certain functions of the Department should ...be turned over either to another agency or perhaps to a privateorgitnization, or,contracted out. t .. . -. . _It is very difficult for th& eye to see itself, and if you are asking

*., ''Ythe Department of Agriculture to administer; evliluat,e, and interpret 1,t'. vits own Kograni, it' is like asking the tobacco- industry to Write a.report on the dvantades or digadvaritivies of smaking.. ..It :cannot b dtransferred toexpariSion, and pro

In that case, y u would have 'a supplemental ad alternativei

,sourcelof nf ormation. ' . /

. As it is, everything internal.0 Senator SIEVENSOIst. How did Foo0. and Nutrition Services get int..,

the Department of Agriculture, and not in HEW, in the first plac,, DO you know? Can -you tell me a little bit about the history? You f ;I' have been around here longer than I have.

Mr. LAVIN, It began in 1935; I suppose most of these. programs istarted out, really, to get rid of surplus conimodities. The Department,of Agriculture was administering' the commodity* program, and itwas really an aid to farmers.

Later, it became nutritionally and socially' oriented for. childtbrkinstead of fiirmersalthough the Department itself is still concernedwith the farmer. , 1 .

Senator STgvENs,ox. In your eighth recommendation, you soy:"Ideally, Congress should set and publish standards for participa-tion in the school bOakfast program and SFSP."; -..

. Could you elaborate a bit on that recommendation? I Want to know ;-;'exactly what it is you' are suggesting, that Congress do.

Mr LEvirr..Just as with the school lunch, Congress could setcriteria If someone fell within an economic range or if a. sponsor metcertain Criteriahad a specified number oi proportion of needychildren-41e .would be eligible to participate. -

t Just as with the school lunch program, any school could participateif it met the criteria. .

Why should the speOial food' service program or the :brNikfast pro-gram be differentiated? In many cases, I feel these 'programs ore more,necessary than the School lunch. : _

Senator ST.nvm.rsor.r. Those are administrative standards, notcongressional standards, even though the program may be bpdly .'administered now. ....

o you believe that the Congress, in view of the failures. of thispro am, should set public standards?

r. lt,EVIN. Congress has set standards for schools &lining into theschool Knell program. , 0 - .

What does it take to participate? .

it

ne Objectively. Certain functions that, could beIIEW.are outreach, in other words, program ,

'arn(evaluation.

I.

Congress has made that determinlition. Any schoolfareparticipate-It should do the same, I feel, in the case of institutions or nonschoolsituations.

80-201-72--2

17

t.

, N.... . . -

' Senator STEVENSON. You suggest that even if Congress made more .zone available, the Child Nutrition Administration might eithernot spend the funds; or might alloqate theta unwisely. : .

Is that a fair recapitulation of what ;you. are saying? ..;.Mr. LEVIN% Well,, yes. T'do not know that they. would allocate

them unwisely. Money is there, but there are restrictions on spending ..*. it ,

Senator STEVENSON. So it is really/not such a matter of appropri-ating ..the funds but administering -the mono that we: have made

, available? We are here ostensibly to establish the p cies and to apake -

"the -funds available, and supposedly, under the Constitution, . theexecutive branch is there to execute, but when does not' e,

awhitt can we do? . r iMr. LE'vng. By setting itundards And sayin iat any institution

meeting these standards can participate, Con ss Can . compel theDepartment to fund a program ever If itIdoesp. t want ,to spend themoney. -.

The school lunch program has an open envied typeof budgeti.andonly when, Congress passes simil4 legislation for the other institutionswill there be a 4rnilarsituation.; `. ,

Alternatively Congress. would have to, be;. acutely are of when,,and how the Department is spending money. Evaluations and audits"'Could be performed by an agency outside the .Department, but that .

would be the only wayfor the intent of the legisiation'to tape effect... Senator .,STEVENSON.- You ' say that moneys are available for the

feeling of darmworXerzbildren.Can you tell us a Mk bit more about those sources of funding?

What is th9souice? now much is available and where is it now?Mr. LIMN. I am not surb I understand:You mean in.excess funds? . I. '., ,Senator STEVENSON. Yes; excess fundai that are not being :made

available by the administration' for the nutritional needs of migrantchildren. . . .

Mr. I.EYIN.. I do not have the figures with me, but I can get .themfor you later. er. -

.

I am aware that. there ark. funds that are being held in reserve forspecial nsoftiS, and apparently these bee& do exist, , .

I have encountered many programs that have.not been approvedbecause of lack of funding, and yet. there are funds held in reserve; I donot know the quantity. ,..

St:n,ator STEVENSON. I believe that about $13 million of the otal$4. Milli( appropriated under 'section 13 , of the .National Sc VolLunch Ac , are being. impounded now. It would be helpful, I think, ifyou Would furnish us With what inforinatiOn you can about fundsavailable that are not being used for those to whom the Congressappropriated, the Tarmworker children.' , .

. . .Mr. LEVIN. Yes. r .,Senator STEVENSON. Could you toll us a.little about the costs of the

school lunch program. What figures do we have todetermineaccuuately11(.4 much a schoothinch costs? We do have to

rbeconcerned about the

of these programs, Do we have accurette, reliable information oilsehooltunch costs?

Mr.-1-Itvn4. Presently several bills based on a school lunch cost of 60cents are, pending in Congress.

,-. (

I

0

tok

.15

.1 have a table prepared'hY'the Department. It is true that the na:tional average does come very close to 60 centinut the figures areobvioisly incorrect.c

For example, the State of Illinois has a school lunch cost of $1.42.The. State of Alaska. as a school lunch cost of 68 cents. The State ofMinnesota has a school lunch cost of 45. emits.

Now; these are' all equi'vulent -lunches. When you average them:nationally, you come out with a figure of 68.2 cents for State-admin-'istered programs and 67.7 ))9r the regional office-administeredprograms.

These figures inclu de 7 cents of commodities, subtracting 7 ocents'igives you an average of 60 cents for a school lunch.

Senator STEVENSON. Holy 'do you explain that disparity ,betw eenIllinois and Alaska for e lent lunches?

Mr. LEVIN. Vhe partment has never issued standar ds. Somek ". States inoludes $(altuies, some include depreciation.

Since there are no stAndards concerning legitimate costs of the .scIfoollunch, some States consider the program to .be coMPletely self-sup-.porting They do not include depreciation and/or salaries aresidered State expense's. Other States include these costs aud dust put'in their own money.

Wei do not have an accurate cost for. the school lunch becausefweryone proceeds differently.' Even within the-State different prode-

fl 'dices are followed. There is no fixed standard because we have nevergiven theinguidelin6s.

Senator STEvErisoli.- Why not? I 'do not understand. Is there someeXplanatio for the failure -to establish the guidelines at this late hour?

Js it shee incompetence) sheer indifference?.Nfr. LEVI . Of course, I have an opinion.Senator ST vtlisoN. What is your opinion?Mr. LEVIN. opinion is incompetence. I cannot imagine running

a program since 1946 and not knowing the cost of a school lunchSenator STEVENSON. It is incredible to me.Mr. LEVIN. I cannot imagine that the Department has never iiisued

guidelines or standards concerning costs. Yet all programs are'f;undedand based on a '(601.;ents" assumption. I do not know that thisligureis or is not 'realistic.

.I understand that USDA has three projects to deternin© realisticcosts. A consulting firm, the . Economic Reseitmli ...Service, andanother source have been hired to conduct studies on the cost of aschool lunch. I feel it would be possible for me to go to friends j'knowat-Hot Shoppes or one of the otlj,er local firms and have them give merealistic estimates down. to the tiOst of a pea. As a Matter otraetr, theDepartment has done this for overseas programs.

It ems incredible tha,t the Department would spend 'a littlefortune to determine the costs when the Department has not-madethe effort itself.

SenatoiNSTEvErrsox. The effort has not been made to gain touchwith professionals in the business cif feeding people to get their esti-mates of what it Would .coat to suppl3t.a given lunch?

It is not very difficult to put together. The USDA eStiniste is notbased on any techniques: It is based on the. actual eixperienee in the

,States and the experience in the States varies from one State to thenext because tii.ere are no guidelines?

. .

c9

I

16

Mr. LEVIN.. Right. ° .

The cost Of the school lunch is determined. by the Federal cashvalue, the value of donated commodity, and the State and local con-tributions. Thp .Department really does not know what the figuresmean. Yet they. use these figures m.preparing estimates and settingup legislation which, in effect, says that the maximum rate of schoollunch is GO cents.

It may be, but we do not know it. Since HA we shave not known.Seriator STEVENSON. You mentioned the problems of categorical

certification. 4What factors ordinarily.support categoricateertification? Why have

not migrants been categorized for purpoSes of certification? IS theresomettung unique about thetpoverty arid needsior migrants j ,

Mr: LEVIN. I think. Vie primary-reason they have not 'been certifietiis that they are not ii political group. Indians lave exercised a g4at..kal of. political pressure, and the Department has allowed States tocereiSs,Indions Under ESEA title I. Migrants, who are also covered bytitle l',irtiloictually-receive special titlI assistance have not-receivedsimilai treatment.

In the'Deparfmlut there is an Indian desk. -There is no migrantdesk. Yon have to It.44,z high level officials interested in specialproblent. groups. ,As it; is new, migrants are just another one of the-subjects of theDepartment of Agriculture. I do not think there will be better.pro-graining until the Department itself sets.upa, migrant desk.

Senator STFENSQN. flow would that affeet administration' ofthese programs at the State and local levels? There was some reference.in your statement to the redtix,pe, and the :difiiculties that f2Jowfailure tt) categorize at the State and local levels. . .

Mr. bEvir4 In the States that I have been to California, Texas,Florida, and North Carolina,-the State school lunch directors werein favor of this categorical certification. Thera were no problemsfrom their side. Within each of. those States 'there was a special .

migrant division ciincerned specifically with migrant programs.Categorical certification would have allowed a great deal of -coordina-tion. In fact, within the Department of Education, there is,a. migrantdivision, and in. most 'eases, the mignint coordinator isAhght nextdoor. ter our school lunch director. . . .

Th'ey could have a very geed working relationship. I .,do not seethat there would botany administrative problem as a result. of cate-gorical certification. 'vet

The .Department cannot identify thennigra'nti kids. IIEW does havethe migrant record transfer system. They have.cven offered, in.mafly .eases, to print out by school the names of these kids-'s9. USDA couldidentify them.

-tSenator STEVIThif301$ Do yOu have any opinions about the generalattitudes of city, county, and State officials toward Federal manage-meat of these programs?

Are they eager for better administratioh at the Fedenal level? Dothey want ki get on with the job of feeding hungry- niigrant.children?

*Mien I went,out on my trips fOr migrants, I did make apoint of speaking to -the local fanners?. officials.1 Some of the farmers'were extremely conserval.ke in their political thinking, and yet with -out- exception. even in the .most politically conservative' areas that I

20

tr

9.*

17

visitedareas .which. have been denied funds by HEW because theywere segregatingvery difficult areaseven there, there was tremen-dous,support for the migrants. In fact, the schools stuck their necks outby accepting obviously improper applications in order to have some-thing on record. So applications from a migrant family- may show 12 -people in the family; monthl income: $90.

The schools know i cowrlcl not be true; but they do not have thestaff or the time to indi dually interview the migrant family to deter-.mine their income

The schools say, ."It our opinion, based on our observation, that'there is a nWy.thild, Ao we will .acceptthe'applieation: That satisfiesUSDA. LegislatiOn does not require thiit-we go ahead and challengethe application.; USDA gives us the authority; but does not requirecertification.

One farmer, -an .iurvisor to USDA, and reportedly the largestemployer in the Texas valley, was in-favor of the school lunch program,although be was agahrt almost every form, of welfare. He said, !!Fine.I alum favor of what you can do for the migrant kids." He had sonicobjections,,to 'what \ye were doing in terms of the adults, buts that isanother Matter. [Laughter.]

Senator STEVENSON. Do you have any observations you would likoto make about the impact of the Department of Agriculture polkies;programs, on the health-of migrant children?

. You have toured some areas where health conditions are abominable.Mr. 1,nm% In dne area I .visited the local: health'center 'serving

migrant families and children. Thepfound almost 00 percent parasiteinfestation and so gave up performing the necessary. eXammAtitins.In my overseas work there were generalizations concerning, parasites.

Up to 30 to 50 percent of food intake can be: lost depending upon thetype of parasite. There is a great loss in the nutritional value. of thefood programsbecause ale health programs appear to be inadequate;but I' am not able to comment fully on that.

.This opinion is based on visits to a few health -centers.Senator STEVENSON. Did I. hear you say you leave tomorrow for

Bangladesh ?:Mr. Lzvpi. Yes;. tomorrow morning. ,

Senator STEVENSON. You will have your hands full there. I returned 4not very long ago from Bangladesh: You will be getting there aboutthe time:the monsoons begin, and I am afraid you will discover thatin addition to just the availability of the food for hungry people, youare going to have the next to impossible job of distributing the 'lifterfunds that are available throughout Bangladesh:

In addition to thanking you for your testimony this morning, Iwant to Wish you well in Bangladesh on a real mission of Mercy. Thepeople there are suffering terribly, not just from lack of food; -but lackof medical attention. Millions will nit even have any shelter 'duringthe monsoons.

I am afraid it has been made far worse than necessary by thehicompetenen of .our own .Gloyernment. We could have acted morecraiekly. We could have recognized Bangladesh and set up aid pro-grains. Instead, we waited, for inexplicable 'reasons until too late .tp

what had to be done., You should have been on your way a lonlr,time ago, and many others should have and could liaN.3, had we acted ,more quickly.

18

We have hearil here this morning a. story of governmental indif' fer-erice and incompetence& a,'story,which we have heard repeated inmany instances throughout all branches of ,our Government.

It is the kind of thing that gives rise, to anxiety and anger in thecountry, the broad feeling that Government. is there to represent andserve everybody except the people.

It will be a better day when funds appyopriatecl by the Congressfor the feeding of hungry and malnourished children are spent for thefeeding of hungry and malnourished children. It will be a far -betterday, ,too, when policies established by the policymaking branch of theGovernment, the Congress, are executed by the executing 'branch ofour Government,. the executive branch., It will also be a better day when pick up the morning newspaperand find the President of thellnited States visiting the 'school lunchprogram in the Rio Grande Willey of Texas, as you have, Mr, Levin,,instead of U. home of the Secretary of the Treasury, meeting withTexas millionaires, assuring th6m that the. oil depletion allowancewill be retainea.

I will instruct the staffs of the respective committees to insertinto the record appropriate mgiials further. documenting thenutrition and food needs of migrant children. We will keep/he record ,,open for you, Mr. Levin, if you can before you leave stirmait thoseadditional materials on the availability of Federal appropriatedfunds for the feeding and the nutritional needs of farmworkers'children.

With that, I thanIyou again.Ti e hearing is now adjourned.(Whereupon, at 111:20 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.)

22

t.

r

f

'AP,PEDIDIX It =BITS SUItM&L!ED BY MARVIN LEVIN, FORMERLY FOOD. PROGRAM SPDCIALIST

WITH G'RE CIIILD NUTRITION DIVISION) 'U7S. DEPARTMENT OP AnfireuvrateStaff explanation: Twenty-eight items (internal memorandums, letters, requests

from States, and reports) are submitted by the witness to illustrate points madeduring his testimony. These documents reveal a pattern of burearicratic dis-regardthrough formal and informal channelsof information readily availableto the Child Nutrition Division of the USDA' with respect to the condition ofmigrant children and their need'for special classification. Tli s written reeordiextends over the period that the witness was employed at the USDA, but suggeststhat at least three Federal Departments: USDA, 0E0, and HEW, were long .

aware of the special:problems of migrant children and simply pined to act.The doeuments, are aueful in another respect, revealing as they do the clear

differences between internal memorandums that recognize the need for additionalfunds or 'authority, and the contrary public testimony of official Departmentspokesmen before the congressional committees able to provide either additional-funds or legislative authority.

.. Items -

(1) Memo dated June 14, 1971, from the witness to Herbertaorex, Director ofthe Child Nutrition Division, describing barriers that prevent migrant childrenfrom participating In the child feeding programs for which they are eligible, andrecommending changes, especially categorical eligibility for migrants.

(2) Memo ditteilt December 1971 from the witness to Mr. Itoreic, on the samesubject as described in item No. 1. The same problems are discussed, the samerecommendations are offered a full half year later. In neither case was any actiontaken by Mr. Rorer. t, (3) A. letter dated Jitts1, 1971, to Mr. Edward. Heiman, Administrator of theFood and Nutrition Serviee, USDA, from Mr. Vidal Rivera, the Chief of theMigrant Programs Branch, title 1, ESEA, RIM. The letter seeks interagencyCooperation in programing, guaranteed funding for migrtInt child-feeding pro-grams; it also presses the issue of why migrants should be categorically eligiblefor programs.-

.

The letter was reviewed by the Deputy Administrator, Howard Davis, onJuly 2, 1971, and sent to Mr. Rorex on July 7, 1971, with handwritten notesaying that Rivera ought to know better.'

Mr. Rivera never reply cl a formal reply to his loiter.(41. A letter dated June , 1971, from the Nebraska title I migrant coordinator

(unaeWhe Elementary an Secondary Education Act),, to the Child Nutrition,Division: The Department of Agriculture had inappropriately promised that hisprogram would be eligible for food under the special food (services program forchildren, wider the authority of Mr. Rorex. Then, in mid-June, the program wasinformed that in fact 'there were no funds available for them. Had the directornot set aside funds, bie children would have had no food.

(5) Nearly 2 months later, on August 2, of 1971, the Department of Agriculturefinally responded, acknowledging their error, but indicating that mistakes of thatsort help them learn.

(0) Informal letter from the witness to Mr. Rivera, setting out the ways inwhich eligible migrant children might actually benefit from the programs. Theletter notes that it is being sent informally because a formal memo containinginformation that 'Would lead to increased eligibility would not be cleared byUSDA. . .

(7) A memo.dated August 12,1971, from a regional supervisor of child nutritionprograms, to Mr. Rorex, reporting on migrant amnia' programs, and includinga memo detailing how the programs might be made more accessible to migrantchildren through administrative changes. .,- (8) Letter dated September 1,' 1971, to Mr. Ifekman from Mr. Rivera, asking

again that migrant children be found categorically eligible for programsUnceagain, Mr. Rivera. received no reply.

(19)

* 23

20

(9) Letter dated March 23, 1972, from tile witness to Mr. Rorex, requestingthat USDA authorize categorical certification of migrant children, and repeatingthe supporting arguments for such authorizetion.

No reply was ever received. 1

(10) Letter from the witness to.Mrs Rorex, dated March 30, .1972, offering an,alternative proposal for certifying migrant and Indian children for participationin the child feeding programs. The memo establishes that current legislationwould .perinit.such actions.

No reply was ever received.(11) Letter dated Apri1.14, 1972, from Mr. Rorex to Mr. Davis, concerning

the eligibility of ESE' title ',programs for -Department of Agriculture childfeeding assistance under the special food service program for children (see. 13Of the National School Lunch Act). In the memo, Mr. Rorex slfggests that theschools be fpund."incligible."

(12) Testimony before the Select Comm ittee on Nutrition -and-Human Needson May 709.69, on behalf of the Nixon administration. HEW Secretary Robert,Finch. testifies that it iy administratjon policy that title I ESEA moneys shouldnot be used for food assistance, and, that the Department of Agriculture shouldshould be responsible for thest miigrams.

(13) Copy of the report of an Office of Economic Opportunity grantee, on theopdration a. the Department of Agriculture food programs,particularly withrespect to migrants. A subsequent' meeting attended by staff of the pertinent 1.

congressional 'committees underscored the findings of the report; namely, that .the Department, of Agriculture poses insurmountable barriers to Governmentgrantees working with migrants. The' practical effect of USDA's lack of respon-sivity toward the migrants is that other Government agencies must be fundedto make USDA programs work. Accompanying the OE() report and availableto the committee staff , are 23 signed and witnessed affidavits attesting to programirregularities for which USDA personnel were directly responsible. The affielosettshave been retained in official files of the committees. ,

(14) November 10, 1071, the witness made an effort fo reduce HEW, title IESEA, and Head Start expenditures fortood by circulating copies of an agreementworked out in California that could readily bet applied in most of the States.Mr. Dickey, Chief of the Program Operations Branch, returned the memo to thewitness with a note asking that it be 'held" bemuse of the funding implicationsfor USDA. Because lie- assumed that Mr. Rorex would not want anything- intireulation that might increase funding outlays, one breach elder was able torefine permission for the witness to send out this already-existing agreementbetween a State school lunch director and one State's migrant programs coordi-nator. Adopted on a widescale, it could have resulted in reduced duplication andreduced HEW expenditures for fooddespite the fact that that was the statddadministration policy.

(1.5) Draft interagency agreement on feed programs dated May 3, 1571. Thisagreement would have eliminated most HEW expenditures for food and shiftedresponsibility to USDA. The Draft statement was rejected by USDA.

Note item No. 12, setting out administration policy on this subject.(16) May 3, 1971, draft letter from Indian -Migrant Head Start Office to Mr.

Rorex, expressing an agreement that migrant Head- Start Centers wt,ultrreceivefull benefits of interagency etoperation.

Mr. Rolex refused to sign the agreement, notwithstanding the fact that it was aproposal fully negotiated and agreed upon by all parties.

(17) An example of informal policy decisions that cripple progtam adminis-trators, and deny food to eligible children.

Juan Del Castillo, Director of the rood Distribution Division, prepared amemo affirming that a wide range of Child Service Institutions were eligible forall of" the available donated commodities. However, Regional Administratorerefused to inform State coordinators of the memo, and Isabelle Kelley, ProgramsAssistant Deputy Administrator, made an informalpelley deciSion not to Informthe States that the memo existed. Thus, legal entitlement to the full range of .'commodity foods was negated by unofficial policies.

The memo was developed because the Montana director refused to provide thefull range of commodities to 1,500 eligible Indian children under his authoritywithout proper authorization. (Some regional administratersi were encouraginthe State personnel to g ahead and use the -commodities without authorizationThe memo was issued to meet his needs, but was not epplied to any other State.

US) A Department of Agrieulturetrepresentative at anIndian- migrant meeting,advised the Indian Head start autlitrities they were eligible for the full range of

24

21

ommoditics. however, when Indian head Start ih Montana; attempted to obtaincommodities, they could not because the State fobd aid nutrition service

d rector did not know he was authorized to issue the commodities. The regionalo (FNSO) hadn't told them.

.(19) Memo dated August 20, 1971, from the witness to Mr. Rorex, outlining thereasons whz USDAshould have an interagency agreement with migrant HeadStart:

No reply was ever received.(20) Sometime before June 30; 1971, the witness sought permissiOn to collect..

statistical information. that would* reveal how much food assistance had to beprovided by IIEW duo to shairtfalLs in USDA. programs. -' -Mr. Rorex refuset1 to send out the survey form to State migrant educationcoordinators, thus cutting off the opportunity to learn what 'expense the USDA1.

was causing in other agencies' programs.ltrformally, several State directors indicated that the Department of Agriculture

had already made it clear that it bad no interest in migrant programs.(21) Letter dated June 9, 1971, from Mr. Rivera to Mr. Hekmitn, pointing out'

the damage that new food stamp regulations 'would do to migrant families.(22) In March of 1972 the Regional Administrator hi tho SthuthweSt WAS given.,

authority to approve the Texas 'Migrant Council's request for cligibilitv undetthe special food service program for children, and WAS assured that ftnids wereavailable.

Howeyer, because full information on available funds was not provided, theRegional Abinistrator honestly did not know whether there was enough money,and pending applications were simply never processed.

(23) In January of 1971, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportnhityhad written to the'Secrotary of Agriculture, reviewing recent discussions between .OEO and USDA staff, with respect to the participation of migrants in the USDA.food Trograms. Mr. Caducei* specifically requested that migrants be found cate-

- gorieally eligible for USDA food programs, and detailed the justification for suchAction.

(24) Reply to Mr. Carlucci from Acting Administrator Howard Davis,to misinterpret or ignore known information and denying the OEO request ernbelialf.of migrants.

/20 In September 1971, a second attempt *as made to collect data on migrantsand food services, and again the request was denied. The denial was based on"* * * the climate such as it is now * *

(20) Handwritten note dated July 2, to Mr. Rorex, concerning a letter fromMrs. Pat Young, director of the Church Women United and United Presbyterian

. Women. The note, is useful on two counts. First, it documentS the Department'sdesire to contain expansion of the school breakfast program, and :second, itexpresses Department- desire to curtail the Presbyterian Women's efforts to "seethat a job is done."

127) Juno 1, 1971, memo from Mr. Rorex to,Mr. Davis, the 'shortage of fundsfor the summer nonschool feeding' program.BubseqUent testimony before theSelect Committee on Nutrition and human Needs (Part, 6, Summer FeedingProgratikand USDA. Decision To Withhold Funds for Section 32, Juno 2:i andJuly 22n971) revealed that even larger program deficits became known shortly.

(28) Despite the exiSteFice of Mr. Rorer's memo, and despite the fact that theUSDA wits calling the States to say that there would not be enough money toprovide the funds pilmised for.the summer lunch programs, Richard Lyng,testified to the contrary before the Senate Committee on Agrictilturo and Forestryon June .8, 1971.

,s

To: Herbert D. Rorex.Through: time Dickey.From: Marvin Levin.Subject: A description of some of the factors inhibiting the extension 'f CNDprograms to migrant children child nutrition division.

I. INTRODUCTORY CO8WUNTh

The proDlenis and pessiblo solutions categorized below" apply specifically tosummer programs fur migrant children. However, these "problems and possible

o

Item (1)JUNE 14, 1971.

25

22 . 'p P. ..,

solution are. to asignifie t degree applicabie to year around migrant,programe, told to some extent to all child Nutrition Division rograms. In this raport, no

effort has been made to do tmeat the,special needs,o migrant children as ampleI documentation on their is available elsewhere. o .

. , .. .. ix. psexcosgtouss' . , . .

o

. 0E0, IIEW, and Labortoperate various special programs for migrant children,

number of children a ler of centeie is operated by the IIEW Migrant-both on a summer and 4 an all-year basis. The largest program in terms of the

Division 'through the State school 'system. During 1970, more than 900 projectscovering approximately 205,000 children were in operation /18 a result of theavailability of title I migraAt funds. This year the number is expected to be higher.

, All other migrant programs (day care, special migrant Iieasistart, etc.). probablyaccount for an additional 10,000 children.

An essential conipinent of all the title I programs-and most of the other o- ,,grams is a feeding operation. Most of the title I progrgobs are structured to include

.3 feeding program which provides migrant children with a breakfast, lunchinndtwo snacks. Other migrant programs (not title I) -provide similar food services,but with a higher. inridenee of dinner, that is, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and two-nee .,.:Although title I funds are not appropriated for nutrition, last year iipprexi-mat( ly S1 milliim of funds meant for elia cdues.fien of migrant children weir,:

s diveyed into neeessary feeding; programs.- OE() and Labor Adso diverted fundsmeant for training, health, and welfare into the feeding programs. This year AS aresultrlit USDA's being unable Of assist to the full extent necessary, scarce re-sottrees meant fur essential nonfeeding programs will be diverted into feeding

. operations. . .

A review of the programs (offered by IIEW, 0E0, an Labor indicates that thefeeding component of most of their. prttgrants for migrant, children should hefunded under th(s.sOeciallood services .programs for children. Nevertheless, lastyear although HEW alone- operated. programs for 235,000 migrant children,USDA, had SESPIT programs `assisting only 29,222 children. This .year our recordof a- stanto to migrant ehildren should be more impressive statistically and.mayservos tap satisfy critici of the Department, even though the actual aim* oft!CRIRtallee has probably not increased Fignitieantly. Thi3 will .become apparentMai the illustrations arid problems indicated 1)(14)w. /

711. OVERALL RIM.) ILIA15A. Getieral Coninienisdi

The outline of problems given below con d form the basis of criticism' of theDepartment by Members of Congress and other inter( steel groups. Specificexamples of some of these poblems are given in section IV. It would not bediffieult, given adequate time, to provide examples of all of the problems' listed.

.Sugge :tea sohitions are provided in sectien V.q.B. I'S141 insensitivity and tack of awareness . .

I. Non-Catcgorization of Migrants as a SprefaHlrottp.Aniong other things,non-eategorization has resulted in: (a) The failure to establish an overall plan ofassistance for migrant children; (io) Incomplete participation of migrant childrenin USDA. prOgrams. Ii some eases no participation of migrant children in ourprograms; (e) rem or no coordination of IluteltiformalvffOrts with the format pro-grams of OF IIEW, and Labor; (d) Duplication of work already completed byother Federal departments, melting in unnecessary effort and expenditure byUSDA and the States. .

3. ni,ferra18.--Prograto information and referrals withotitloialifierit ions are madeto potential participants, even though we are aware that the funding sitoation is

((Thiesl emit that the chalices of approval are slight. The applimyt with greateffort goes through the laborious Drec(S-s of applying, only to'be advised later thatfunds are not available. Thi9 lack of candor leads to problem 3.

3.. Reluctance to .Become involvetl,--=13ecaase of the delay and uncertainty ofprogram approval, many potential applieants are reluctant to apply for USDA

' assistance. They cannot place their entire program in jeopardy by whiting forpossible USDA approval, and so they divert some of their own scarce resourcesinto a feeding operation. . ' . 1

4. Specific Problons.Laele of documentation., insufficient proof. of biome,lack of trust in Government, and the unwillingness of migrant familiots to sign..bscorne statements have been documented by other Federal and State agencies.

lik.

26

.1,

:28-

: -Within USDA, this has resulted in migrant children not receiving free.; or redUced-..rtpe meats, .

htconsistencies.Identioal, progranis in different States. are covered by,illEferent-iaterpretations;---In-one-State-a-pregraaninaybe-cdyered bf:the-SFSPFCwhereas in, another it via be covered under the national school lunch program.This MS:resulted in , extra. bacikkeeping, nonparticipation. and 'incomplete par-..ticipation.C. Funding )7-blitern

Unclerfunding has resulted in 11.4ailiire to -achieve the full potential for pro.graining, delays in, appecivali and reltiqtance to work out interagent3r agreements.412,,General probleme

.1 'reference underthe special: food services programs for children (SFSPFC)is given to year-ardinid programKiwhere0,the key requirentent periods for migrantchildren are short term.. '

2. The lack of records concerning the number of appliCatione denied because ofI lack.of funds prevents adequate projections-of future requirements.

I' ni. TiratirliES OF OVERALL i'llOBL4M01.-'60mments ,

.the details providectbelow were pbtained from HEW, 0E0, Labor, and per-":.4onal visits to the regions and. States. These examples could be expanded both inquantity and .quality :of description. The bracketed letters and numbers at theendof each example refer to the factors in part III which were most important' inthe particular problem"B: Specific exampaS .

Newjersey.SCOPE, an 0E0 funded project scheduled to begin Operation insix counties of New Jersey on June 14, 1971, has not received approval for assist;..once under the SFSPFC (as of June.11). They requested three meals and twosnacks. (B2, C, Dl.) '

2. California.(a) Approximately 8,000 children..enrolleci in migrant titlesummer programs are not receiving any assisAtnee:fbr breakfast; lunch, .or.szlftcks.. : because the. St4st agency does-not have.adequate furids'Ici aSsist.them under theSFSPIFCelb,M2,133,i134; .

ro/dmattly 22,000 migrant children aic paving 39 cent4loi lunch rather.than receiving free lunches because the Pakents:tif;.the hilciren have not appliedfor welfare and have not signed incomeiftaternenfs:k `alternatlite to the incomestateinent is suggested' in section. Y- )1: P-tlie."npinio State officials, mostof these children would riuslify for-- elfaie assistance ific, eir Parents"*Ould'applYi

.:and presently they would- qualify for free lunches. Title funds art .M some casesused to.offset the 30,cent.charge. :

. : 3., Taras:-,,-Approxirciate13rJ0,009..ehildren are,emelled in the sc lunch pro-., gram. BetweenJuly 1 and Angust 4.540itle I funds are used td cover the expenses

of the school lunch. Breakfast and Ihrichitare paid fur by title I far. all year andsummer programs. Both the State'Sagenty,and the title I ntgrant coordinatorindicated. they Would welcorne coverage under 'the special food services prograini3for children, , even though they recognize. such coverage would come from the

aegional.office. : , .. .

4. t New/ l'rpik.--Efecause appreval for program assistance under the sPecial.foodservices Progratim fOr'ehildren has not been received, 5,500 migrant children arebeing assisted 1iy.diverting TitleI funds.

.5. , VirginicAPProximatdly 700 children are being assisted 'via title I fundsbecause pf insufficient funds Under the special fond services programs for children.'Only commodity assistance is being rendered,

6. Florida, Approxiniatebt 4,000 children will be funded under the special food,services/ programs for children at approximately 50 percent of their requirementbecause of insufficient funds. Title I funds'Will make up the difference.

Ilfichigan,Approximately 8,000 migrant children will be funded under theSchool lunch prograin.'itlesI funds will make up the difference between what isprovided under the school lunch and what is rekuired tof the children,

18. Neuada.--E0B of Clark Cpunty, Nev,: (an 0E0-funded project), is negotiat-ing for assistance under the special food services programs for children. Assistance

,as unlikely.Plorida.-4n, 'order to provide adequate foOd assistance, the title x migrant

coordinator hap agreed to pay the county $1,000 per clasS of 20 migrant children

it'

24 i?

per 180 days for preparation and personnel assistanqe. Last year $160,000 of title Ifunds were used to meet this expense. .

10. South Carolina.-0E0 has, funded projects for food services in South Caro-hna and-Texas whia-Kaniahave and should have been funded by the special food,services programs for children.

11, Nationally.Slightly less than $4 million was spent last year by HEW tofund food services which could have been included under one of onr programs.

Le.* Child Nutrition Division.Is attempting'to quantify its assistance to mi-(I grants. We aro in the process of requesting the, regional offices and the State agen-

cies to advise us on the number of migrants being assisted. This information, in-eluding information on where we have not assisted is available through the variousFederal and State agencies that have special programs for, migrants. --ii

V. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO SOME OF. THE PROBLEMS

A. Categorize migrants as a special needy groupHEW, OEO, Labor, and the White House categorize migrants as a special

problem. USDA while not formally categorizing migrants, does so informally.By formal categorization we would facilitate the establishmeht of an overall planof assistance to migrants. Informal regognition inhibits the establishment of anypriority system, inhibits adequate funding, does not take into eonsiaeration thespecial problems of migrants, inhibits .program consistency between States, andinhibits adequate coordination with other Federal agencies. ,

B. Obtain adequate funding .

The special food services programs for children must be adequately funded. IfHEW has programs requiring food assistance for' 235,000 migrant children andother agencies have programs for approximately 10,000_ children, it wou seemthat we would require special food services programs for children funds ad uateto cover their needs in addition to our other program needs under the s cialfood services programs for "children.

.

C. Clarification of eligibility under SF SPFC ..

According to HEW, approximately 90 percent or more of the title I summerprograms for migrants are nonaceredited and nongraded. When the programs havebeen classified by a region or State as ta"program to be funded under the specialfood services programs for children these programs have received more assistanceand have had less title I funds diverted into feeding. When they. have beenclassified' as a program falling under the school lunch program, they have receivedless assistance from USDA and have had significant title I funds diverted intofeeding. Yet a review of the program contents under the special food servicesprograms for children and school lunch indicate they are identical. Clarificationof eligibility is required in order to prevent subjective interpretations.D. Coordinate programs

...

HEW, OEO, Office of Child Development, Labor, the. States, and regionaloffices have indicated a willingness to work out a plan whereby their appliCantk,and grantees would be specifically tied into our programs. An example of the typeof agreement that could be worked out is as per the attachment to this repUntil we can guarantee program funding, we cannot enter into any agreemCoordinated programs would prevent unnecessary referrals and reduce admiiiisttive costs.E. Accumulate data through other agen.cies ,

.

Most of the USDA/Child Nutrition Division programs for migrant childr7e°are components of larger programs ,Food services account for approxiinately 4to 10 percent of HEW, OEO, and Labor programs If the Department specificallyties its assistance,to the programs ofother agencies, agreements on. sharing dataand reports could:he made.F. Utilize alternatives for determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals

Many migrants refuse to sign income statements, thus m -'ng their childrenineligible for free or reduced price meals. The reasons for s have been docu-mented elsewhere, notably in HEW and OEO special re

A rapent survey completed by Labor indicates that the family income of farm-workers is less than $3,600 and that the average family size is eight (two adultsand six children). By knowing the occupations, number, and ages of family mem-bers, it would be possible to estimate a yearly income. This indirect method of,

28

25 f_estimating income would give a reasonable approlimation and still preservethe dignity of the applicants, thus allowing the Department to fulfill its stated goal. of assisting the Nation's children. _

sheiddhe TilSfed-that system of .this sort (Classification by occupation andfamily size) is used by the Department of State and by U.A..Ageney for Inter-national Development in rendering food assistance to children in underdevelopedcountries.vI cobrovasioNs.

The special needs of migrants willnot disappear and will probably become morepronounced before the situation improveS. It would be better for the Departmentto plau a program rather than react to a crisis,Although it is probably too late to make major changes which would signifiaantlYaffect the migrant child this year (and in view of the funding problem under thespecial food services Programs for cliticlren which is accentuated by the fact thatour regibnal offices are encouraged to give priority to all-year programs), never-theless, it is felt that a' departmental declaration of priority with respect tomigrants might result in aiding some of the more precarious migrant programs.

Item' (2)To: Herbert Roux.

DECEMDER 1971.From: Marion Levin.Subject: Extension of Programs To Migrant Children.

RECOMMENDATIONS'

1. Migrants should be "classified as a special group by U.S. Department ofAgriculture.(a.) They are already 'classified as a special group by HEW, 0E0, and 48 out of50 States.(b) Classification would allow for greater consolidation of existing programs thepnification of the Department Programs with State and other Federal agencyprograms and for the establishment of needed priorities.(c) Through classification direct support of migrant programs may be possible.2..Categoncal certification of migrant children as eligible for free or reducedprice meals should be considered.(a) Migrants are categorized by occupation (Economic ResearCh Service esti-mates average daily income equals approximately $12 per day for thpmale andfor the female; average yearly working days equals 80) not by social, racial, .ethnic groupings. Accordingly, it could not be argued that by allowing them to beso certified irwould necessarily follow that other grqups as for example Indians,would also be eligible for categorization.(b) All migrant children are eligible for title I and title I migrant funds therebyindicating they are especially needy.(c) Clear identification. of migrant children at local and State level can 1;12,effected throughout the United States by school records and/or the migrant datetransfer- system.(d) Migrant families are generally functionally illiterate and cannot properlycomplete the free and reduced price lunch. application.(e) Although' no instance was found where a migrant childtwas declared ineligiblefor a free lunch based on the eligibility levelsa review of applications indicatedthat financial data on most of the applications was obviously unreliable. It wasfound that schoo1.4 were an. fact.servint free and reduced price, lunches to recentlyarrived migrant children even though a high percentage of their applications hadnoebeen received. It was 'anticipated that they would be in fact eligible; however,this forces the schobls to work outside the regulations in order to 'meet the imme-diate needs of the child.(D Reasonably reliable financial data on migrants could only be obtained whenand if a family member came to school for an intensive interview, or when and ifthe school-home visitation worker made a lithe visit and conducted .a familyinterview. Administratively both procedures place a heavy burden on the school.(g) Family income data must be carefully reconstructed by personal interview.In the three States reviewedi.it is estimated that less than 10 percent of themigrants (closer to 5 percent) would not qualify for a free meal under existingstandards.

29

(h) Because the child marra6ve,fronf.tW.p-':,(o'ttfive tirnesieach school yeEtrhefaced with reapplying for lunch eligibility)

(i) The three States refieeted-sn estimated migrant-schoolchildren universe ofTexas, 70,000; Florida, 50,000; California, 89,000; total,. 200,000.

(j) An estimated 90 percent are enrolledlin schools participating in a nationalschool lunch program. It has been 'estimated that 95 percent or 170,000 are receiv-ing a free or reduced price lunch* * *'of which less than 2 percent are served atthe reduced price.

(k) All three States are favorably inclined tothe categorical certifying ofmigrantchildren.

3. An extensive survey of Child Nutrition Division programs for migrant, children

7muld be undertaken. .(a) It is extremely probable that the Department could establish that it is.

meeting the needs of migrant children in the school lunch program.(b) Information coVected would allow the Department to formulate plans which

would satisfy the various oriticeof the Department.(c) If desired, Programs Operations Branch in cooperation with the University

of Miami and other universities could develop and implement a survey instrumentwhich would provide the needed information in 2 to 3 months at little expense.beyond per diem and salary.

4. Because of poor intrasta4e relations affecting our programs and because ofthe many types of program violations obserVed:

(a) USDA should consider assigning someone on a permanent basis (anextensionoffice . . . a la foqd stamp setup) within each major program State. Initially anassignment eould be made at the State agency level.

(b) Many if not most of the problems within aState could be worked outsimplyby having a Federal worker, present to facilitate communications between variousState and local government agencies.

5. Certification of migrant children (and in fat all children) eligible for free andreduced meals should be extended from the close of 1 fiscal year to the end of thefirst complete month of operation (for example, the end of September).

(a) School lunches are served from the first day and any school with a large-number of children receiving free or reduced-price meals cannot ir

pe and process

' ap lications.(b) During the first month of school, school officials are overburdened with reg-

ular school processing and therefore cannot devote the time necessary to ade-quately review and process Iunch applications. .

6. Priority under section 13 should be extended to migrant day-care centers.(a) Ongoing and potential day-care centers absolutely require federally sup-

ported food service programs if they are to be viable.(b) The early working hours of the parents usually results in the migrant child

missing the morning and noon meals (or eating inadequately during these periods).(c) Without such centers, many migrant school age children miss classes in

order to care for the younger preschool children, or the parents bring the youngerchildren into the field where they work in violation of childlabor laws.

(d) Actual cases of malnutrition were observed and reported for preschoolmigrant children, It could be embarassing to the Department if this is madeknown to Department critics.

7. School breakfast programs are especially necessary for migrant children.Therefore a priority should be established at the Federal anthState level in ap-proving applications for school breakfast programs for schools with largemigrantenrollments. 1

. (a) Same justification as for the special food service programs above applies.,(b). Schoolteachers have specifically indicated that a sohqol breakfast program

*would be especially advantageous to the migrant child.8. NT$'S should be requested to develop a menu-planning guide or food pattern

especially applicable and acceptable to Mexican-American children. (All migrantchildren interviewed expresged interest in receiving more ethnic foods.)

9. A survey should be undertaken to determine how food and nutrition servicechild programs can be extended to the migrant preschooler that are not currentlybeing reached by any Federal program but which are in great need.

30

27

Item (3)e DEPARTMENT' Or HEALVILEOVOATIONf. AND WELFATUFly

Omen Qr EVOCATION,Washington, D.C., July 1, 1971.Our Reference: BESE, DCA MPB.

EDWARD 3. FURMAN,Administrator, rood and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Wash-ington, D.J.

DEAR Mn. IlnaltAN: Our office has been in close contact with personnel ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture's Child Nutrition Division in order to facili-tate the delivery of food services to migrant children in the title I migrant educe-

The title I,,ESEA, migrant edfication prograi.served over 900 school districtstion program.

and approximately 235,000 children this year. Although our funds are earmarkedspecifically for education, we have had to assume the additional burden of pro-viding necessary food and,health services whenever they have not been available

from other sources. In the past as much as 7 percent of migrant education moneyhas been budgeted for food and nutrition. Whenever possible migrant children ,are included in the regular school lunch program but during the summer monthswhen the bchool lunch program is usually inoperative, we must pick ;up theexpense. Most of our projects provide breakfast, lunch, two snacks, and in someinstances dinner. With an approximate summer enrollment of 1001000 childrenfor an estimated 50-day period, the amount of vital funds for educational servicestherefore is greatly reduced.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Child Nutrition Diyision has repeatedlyencourngedT our State migrant coordinators, state department of education,to apply for the school lunch and special food services programs for children. Insome cases, results have been satisfactory but many times the formal commit-.merit from the U.S. Department of Agriculture isIcio late in coming to be con:-

. sidered in the planning of a.project and proyides only partial assistance. Thus,.the money is budgeted out of the migrant allocation. The possibil!ty of being' only partially' reimbursed after the USDA application is approved has been, acontinuous problem.As field reports and surveys by other agencies indicate that migrants fall wellbelow the U.S. Department of Agriculture's minimum poverty level require-ments, 'we suggest that designating migrants as a general category eligible to

receive free or reduced meals would be the most satisfactory means of dealingwith, the situation.In order to insure State migrant coordinators a greater degree-of budget flexi-bility in their planning for the coming year, we would like to obtain a commit-

, ment from the Department to serve our estimated 100,000 nonacademic credit(as determined by State educational agencies) summer project children as well as135,000 school year ehildren. Our coordinators could then' apply for USDAservices with the assurance that-funds would be available to the project. rSincerely yours,

..

Irma, A. RIVERA., 3r.,Chief, Migrant Programs Branch,Division. of Compensatory Education.

1. Try to call Rivera right away.2. Explain why the delay in contactSW fund hassle, continuing resolutionWork et cetera. .13. Thanks for his invitation, we are interested.4. This is very much in line with section 13 of CNAfor other agencies to'transfer funds, as a stated and USDA to budget on long range.5. Could we start talking about "interagency" session to explore.* 6. Then write him for Hods' signature along line of discussion.

14%

7

MEMORANDUM .

To: Herb Rorex.F_ romr Howard. P. Davis.

He is asking for an impossible guarantee. We.can't promise to fund a migrant .feeding program as Such.

They have-to take their chances with local school districts in States wherethey are locatedall within the State's apportioned share.

Rivera ought to know by now how we are organized and that we mist workthrough the State agencits. -

U.S. DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE,FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE:,

MIDV/kBT REGIONAL OFFICE.,Chicago, Ill., June 28,1971.

Subject: Special food service programNebruka.To: Gene Dickey, Acting Chief, Program Operations.Branch, Child Nutrition.f Division, Washington, D.C.

iAttached is a letter from Mr. Richard L. Bohy, director, Nebraska migrantprograms relative to the above, subject which we are forwarding for yourinformation. R. H. CEnvENY,

Acting Regional Supervisor, Child. Nutrition Programs'.

NovExtams-.29, 1972.

Item (4)NEBRASKA MIGRANT PROGRAMS,

June 10, 1071.Mr. KEITH KEELEY,Special Food Service, Program, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, D.C.DEAR Mn. KEELEY: During the Third Annual Interstate Migrant Coordinators'

Conference at the ,Burlington Hotel in Washington; D.C. (January 1971), youmade a presentation encouraging the inclusion of migrant education programs inthe Department of Agiieulture's special food ,Bervices program.

Since Nebraska operates only summer migrant programs; it appeared thatNebraska's fiscal year 1971 migrant programs could qualify for reimbursementunder the special food' services program. With assistance from Nebraska 'schoolfood service personnel and from personnel in the Midwest Regional office of theFood and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the necessary ap-plication forrns were procured and completed. On April 27, 197.1, Nebraska'scompleted forms were forwarded to. Mr. It. J. Nelson of the Chicago regionaloffice.

Shortly thereafter, wa received a phone call from that Chicago office requestingsome additional narrative information. On May 5,, 1971, that information wasprovided in the form of a letter.

No communication took place between May 5 1971 and 14, 1971. Then,because of our concern about the silence, I called the Chicago office. During thatphone conversation I was informed that Nebraska will quite possibly receive noreimbursement under the special food services provision, since the moneys avail-able for this program have been exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Fortunately, our migrant funds are 'adequate to cover the costa of food pro-grams in operation,. but I am sure you can recognize the potentially critical fi-nancial situation that could have been created.

While I realize that none of you control directly the funding, it would seemthat a state, could be informed thiit fundfi were not available. But, it seems to'me, were encouraged to make application for funds which were known to be non-existent even while the application process was being completed.

I don't know if you are the appropriate official to field these concerns.ever, if you ,are not, I trust that you will make this letter available to the cor-rect officials, for I am very concerned about the potential crisis which could becreated if this situation is real, or if it should be permitted to occur in the future.

Thank you for your time and interest.Sincerely,

.32

RICHARD L. Bouv,Director.

29ogrot,

Item (5)

Pauct 011/4nierioNe inarien,CHILD NUTRITION DIN/RION,Washington, D.C., August t,Mr: RiouAito L. tour, k.

Director,, Migrant Programs, State Department of Education, Slats CapitolLincoln, Nebr.

MAR Mn. BOut: Thank you for your June 16 letteeoncerning the Depart-ments encouragement of application by migrant organisations for assistanceunder the specie' food service program for children. J,i; Ar%We wish to apologize for any difficulties we may haveSansed you in formulatingylour programs. At the time we encouraged organizatitirip to apply our informs- A,

'Con and funding. ability under the special food eerviccprogram led us to believethat we would have more than enough. funds available, to mg< programs such'as yours.

Even when we became aware of probable difficultielan late May, we anticipatedthe.tigiust min previous years, there would be adcqqtie funds available once wehad completed reapportioning those funds which bdJiot been spent by otherStates. Howikrer, by the end of the first week of 40" it was determined th&tthere would neither be adequate funds after reaportionrnent or as a result 15finternal transfers within our total budget.

Subsequently, we have found it possible to prove additional Tunds for the'summer !pectin% programs. These funds together ,with funds already availablefrom earlier allocationst will provide a total of $29.9pillion for this year'ssummerprograms, compared with the use of $6.8 million ref last.year's "summer programs.

Although we recognize the,program dilemma we have caused you, we never.;theless feel that yotir application for assistance Was necessary in order for theDepartment to plan its future budgetary reqUirenIfinth.

The unanticipated overwhelming response for asstance under the special foodservice program has resulted in a reevaluation of our budget for this program.Although we failed to meet your needs last fiscal year, your application will 1---7(.nal)1(. tin to plan appropriately for this fiscal year.

from applying this year.Thank you for writing and we hope this experience will you

Sincerely,

Director, Child Nutrition Dimon.

Item (6)"'Dunn, Vie and,Ettis: Enelosed is a copy of our regulatiom concerning eligibility

for free- and reduced-price lunches. Also enclosed is a copy of our regulationsconcerning the national school lunch program. I have underlined in red thoseparts which could be important in'your programi..

As, you know there appear to be some problems in mom States for certifying.migrant children as eligible ar free- or reduced-price Meals. Since poet of yourprograms are operated throtrght the school system, it seems to me that the co-ordinators who arrange the program locally could at the same time arrange for thelocal school food authorities to certify the migrant children as eligible for a free-or reduced-price lunch.

It hardly seems possible that the same local school authorities who accept and-approve a title I migrant program could turn around and say thet these childrenare not in need of a free lunch. Since the amount reimbursed in the school situationis determined locally by the school. officials, it would seem that the initial programdiscussions should inclulle a discussion on lunches, breakfasts, etcetera.

At the State level, I would suggest that your coordinators have a discussionwith out State directors concerning the issuance of a. letter from the State to alllocal school districts suggesting that migrant children be considered, eligible forfree meals without a formal application. Although the local school distriets maketheir own determination, the State director's letter will carry tremendous weight.If, as I suspect, some school lunch directors are reluctant to imeue suca a letter,your coordinators could, in my opinion, take this matter up to the State super-intendent, or whatever he is called. Our State, directors are'acting on his behalfand.if the State Department of Education feels that migrant children should beeligible for free meals, our State director won't fight it.

86-201-72-8

,63

30.

At the Stato level you might also clarify whether migrant programs are formaleducational programs or enrichment progratas.,This is a State determicatton.If this State feels they are not formal educational programs, the children would Ileeligible foressistanco under the special food 8:Tvice progratn rather than 'mkrthe school lunch. Under:the fiESP, the children would be eligible for breakfast,morning and afternoon snacks,. lunch, and dinner. Your coordinators could be.reimbursed up to '9;; cents per- day or on an 80 percent basis. Fox the tununerpiogrems I think we-would lie getter off .having this antler the SFSP, the rate of -'reimbursement could be determined at the State Owl or Federal levellwhedthe SFSP is administered by fhe Ads. '

I ant not sending this as an-officialetter because I don't think I can get this.'As you know, USDA prefers to avoid any conflict and I'm suggesting that '4

your people must be prepared to.take their ease to theNsuperintendent if migrantkids are to receive all that is possible., /

Best

Item (7)-U.S.' .DEPAIITMENT or AURIeULTURE,l'

Foon AND NUTRITION SEIMICI4MIDWIM It1'.0IONA14 OFFICE,.

Chicctgo, Auguta 12, 1071.Subject: Sumnill<Migrant Food Service ProgramsWisconsin Statt Agency.To: lIerbert D. K_ orex, Director, Child Nutrition Division, Washington, D.C.

Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Post reporting Wisconsin selolconducting summer migrant programs this year.

i

Also attached is a copy of an earlier memo front Mr. Post to the .Wiscohsinmigrant programs supervisor offering tisistance in developing guidelines forimplementation of these programs as well as gtatistival data developed from1'971-72 application agreements received and anticipated.

lb. II. CERVENY,Acting Regional &Taylor, Child Nutrition.Programs.

4

1 w.

1

AN

TIG

IPA

TkO

PR

OG

RA

M. S

TA

TIS

TIC

S D

EV

EL

OPE

D F

RO

M 1

971-

72 A

PPL

iCA

TIO

N A

GR

EE

ME

NT

Nam

e at

adm

otN

umbe

rN

umbe

r of

of c

lan

-4D

Abi

ndle

s.

AD

PA

mou

ntcl

aim

edN

umbe

rof

day

sA

DA

Num

ber

atbr

eakf

asts

Aw

ait '

Hum

bert

oA

mou

ntA

DP

clai

med

No

swab

.21

2410

01.

Rut

ted

0922

401.

120

4021

34. C

O22

'40

'-

1,12

02,

152.

001:

120

537.

fa

Mon

loito

(H

)30

551,

650

5519

2.00

3055

1,65

01.

550

712-

00W

ahtla

lm(2

)27

752,

025

7524

3.00

27-

'75

2,02

530

3.75

2, 0

2597

2.00

Oah

rtek

l (H

)40

291,

120

'21

134.00

4021

1,12

015

8. 0

01,

120

537.50

lock

s (H

)30

601,

KO

60'21

6.00

-1,

500

154.

00G

alat

ia (

5)45

110

4, 9

5011

059

4.00

4, 9

502.

376.

00L

ake

Mal

l(.4

0,11

53,

000

7536

0. 0

040

753,

000

450.

00lim

a1.

440.

00T

wo

Itiv

incF

)29

451,

305

4515

6. 6

029

4541

,305

195.

001,

345

626,

48N

ottin

don

)33

370

12,2

10'

370

1,4,

420

'.12

,210

5.85

0.80

Wm

QM

. Cl)

...,

3025

2.55

025

3,26

.00

....

'2,

550

: 1, 2

24. 0

0Sk

eels

Poi

nt (

D)

3010

43,

120

104

374.

4020

104

2,12

0,

4610

03,

120

1,4!

7.20

Mad

ams

(D).

3015

04,

500

. 150

540.

0030

150

4 '.

500

150

!15.

00

4,50

02,

150.

10St

ralo

sols

e'

caba

na('

°con

ic',

Tot

al39

,350

4.72

1.30

'17,

440

stat

istic

s in

clud

e an

'loo

t spo

nsor

ed s

umm

it fo

ldin

g pro

gram

s.2

Ant

rim

ied

potta

m f

or W

M*

eM a

pplo

catm

n-ag

roon

unt h

as b

een

moo

ed.

Hus

tler

of b

roM

sfas

ti an

ticip

tlad:

4277

539

,350

18,2

80.0

0

9

DEPARTMENTAL CORRUPONMCNCMMARCH 29;1971.

.To: Mr. Clemons Baime, Supervisor, Migrant ProgramsES,EAtitle I.From: Edward Post, Administrator, School Food Service egrams.Subject: Contracts and cash reimbursements for summer migrant programa

sponsored by school districts.If a school district is planning to sfioneor and implement a summer title I

migrant program this year, we would very much appreciate your .cooperationassistance in getting the school authorities to understand and carry out their

-responsibilities relative to the required contracts, records, reports, and claims.All food telvice programs involving the receipt of USDA commodities and cash

reimbursement must be covered by appropriate rontracts. It would appear thatall of the migrant programs would offer the lunch program or the, breakfastprogram or both. An application-agreement would be necessary for both programs.The commodity distnibution contract will be extended to the end of the migrantprogram in school districts presently covered for the school lunch program.However, a now contract would be necessary for sponsors not presently undercontract to receive USDA commodities For the school lunch or breakfast pro-grams. Attached is a copy of the school lunch, breakfast, and commodity distri-bution contracts.

Funding for the special milk program is not sufficient fqr this kcal yrear; he1972 fiscal year rgepropriation does not provide for a continuatio8 -of the s ialmilk program. We will not, therefore, enter into any contracts for the ecialmilk program.

We offer the following guideline to implement a summer migrant food serviceprogram:

1. School districts presently offering a food service program have designatedan authorized representative. Whenever possible, coordinate the migrant foodservice through the authorized representative.

2. Ask that the school district representative request an application-agreementfor the food service pregram(s) that will be. operating for the migrant school.Submit request prior to fay 15.

3. Work with the school district staff so that the proper records and reportsare properly expedited. They or their office staff are knowledgeable about theclaim procedures to request reimbursements from the School Food ServicePrograms Section of this Department.

4. Work closely with food service personnel, if possible, to learn of the avail-ability and utilization of commodities,dood procurement, menu planning (menusmust meet the typo A pattern), and equipment operation.

Cash reimbursements: 'Lunch program

Food service programs operating under an approved contractJiro eligible forcash reimbursements. We arc able to provide the following rates:

cents

General cash assistance for each typo A lunch 12Special cash assistance for each typo A lunch 48

Total 60

Breakfast programFor each breakfast served to students, 15 cents.Adults are not to be counted in the lunches or breakfasts claimed for

reimbursement.No funding is available from UtSDA funds to purchase snacks.In planning the budget for the food service portion of the migrant program, we

believe a-realistic per meal cost should be ascertained. Our records for the variousprograms during the, school year suggest that the following figures should guideyou in planning an adequate food service program: Neon lunch, 75 cents; break-fast, 25 cents; snack, 10 cents.

We would suggest, then, that after consideration is given to the reimbursementrate forthcoming from USDA funds, you would allow in your budget an Mount of15 cents per lunch, 10 cents per breakfast and 10 cents per snack.

In addition to the cash reimbursemeatik the students in the migrant programsparticipating in the approved school lune !! and breakfast programs arc eligible toreceive the available donated commodities. We would recommend that the school

%,;

11.

33

districte anticipating a summer program request additional oomniodities. Nospecial orders will be made available after the regular school delivery in May.

We hope the above information will be helpful in preparing for your food lierVIODprogram needs. If we can be of further assistanoe, please do not hesitate to contactus at any time.

tvItem (8)

DEPARTA(RMT Or HRApTif, EDUCATIO*1 AND Warrurs,OPIUM or EDTJOATIOtt,

Washington, D.C., Stipttcnber 1, 1971.Our Reference: BESE/DCE /MPB.Mr. EDWARD J. Hxxxtur,Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C.Brim Mx. Hmktutt: Thank you for sending 'the new amendments to. the

-national school lunch program and nonfood aseistanoe.program Id time to allowproper study and comment.

We do question the requirenient on page nine. which states "Nothing in thisparagraph shall be deemed to authorise the State agency, or FNSRO whereapplicable, to make reimbursement from special cash aselatanee funds for all typeA. lunches served- in i'lechool unless a reasonable basis exists for finding that allchildren in the school meet the school's eligibility standards for free-and reduced,price lunchee. The State agency, or Food and Nutrition ServiceRegional °Dinewhere applicable; shall maintain ort,file, or 011.130 to be maintained on file, the data,used to make such a finding!!

Our office feels that these regulations would benefit the migrant child only ifho were placed in a specifikcategory milling him eligible for maximum free foodservices. Otherwise the usual difficulties with documentation, unexpected arrivalsand departures would again prevent this child from receiving the help he se badlyneeds.

I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this item.Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Josnrn BERTOGLIOFor Vidal A. Rivera, Jr., Chief,

Migrant Programs Branch, Division of Compensatory Education.

Item (9)

Subject: IIEW migrant reciueet.To: Herbert D. Rorex, Director, Child-Nutrition Division:Through: Gene P. Dickey, Chief, Progrilm Operations Branch, CNIJ.

For your information; the title' I migrant branch of HEW will shortly besending a letter to Mr. Hekmin requesting that USDA authorise categoricalcertification of migrant children for free/reduced price meals. On the' basis of atelephone conservation, the following information was obtained:

1. There are approximately 235,000 migrant school-going children in the HEWprogram.

2. All of these children are title I recipients.3. In addition to being title I, because they are' considered especially needy, .

they receive special title I migrant4. Each of these children have a special student identification numbee and each

State educational agency has the capability to identify by local spool the child atany given time of the year.

5. Categorical certification is felt to bemoceeeary because of Ilia high degree ofparental illiteracy and the difficulties encountered by schools and parents Inobtaining properly completed application forms.

Based on our recent field trip to home base area, the following war noted:1. No Instance was found where a migrant child was not declared eligible for a

free lunch.2. In perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the cases, local schools Were providing a free

lunch to migrant children even though there was no tonal application.3. School officials cited the obvious need for a child to receive a free lunch.

. Mallon 23, 1972.

3.7

34

4. Neglect, oversight, and other administrative work were cited as the reasonsthat no memo was placed in the child'a file to indicate eligibility fora free lunch.

5. Applications on file were with few exceptions so obviously incorrect as to bemeaningless. Correct applications could only be obtained if and when the schoolsocial worker made 'a home visit or the male member of the family was called intothe school. Both situations created extreme difficulty for the school officials andparents.

Since migrants are grouped' by occupation, that includes all racial andethnic groups and it would seem that a strong_ argument could be made for cat-egorical certification of migrants which would not be applicable tAiother occu-pational groups.

MARVIN LEVIN,Program Operations Branch.

Item (10)

U.S. DEPARTMENT 'Or AGRICULTURE,FOOD AND NUTRITION NERVICI,

Washington, D.C., March 0, linSubject: Alternative to free /reduced price application and categorical certification;To: Herbert D. Ittirex

tI)ireettir, Child Nutrition. Division:

Through: Gene P. Diekey, Chief,`Program Operations Branch, CND.Although the application procedure (both personal and categorical) for free-

and reductrd-price meals is satisfactory for most program schools, there are timesand situations where the application procedure is inadequate in terms of reachingthe needy child. -

Examples of such times and situations art as follows;A. -Families of migrantiand Indian children have an extremely high degree of

funetiimal illiteracy. In addition, there are well-known historical traditions forboth groups which inhibit formal application for a free- or reduced -price meal.In many instances, where there is a -formal application, a review of the dataclearly indicates a failure to comprehend the application. In many of these in-sfances, school officials have indirect data which clearly indicate poverty andmeltable eligibility for a free meal.

B. Schoals have reported instances where, due to parental indiffrence.a familyhas It& applied ft* a free- or reduce4-price lunch. Information at the schoolindirectly indicares that the child is isith eligible and in need of a free lunch.

4 Although local authorities can certify children without a formal application,seined officials are reluctant to do this due to possible audit and review objections.This is true even, though local officials may strongly believe the child is eligibleand in need.

It is, therefore, suggested' that authorization and.gitidelines a' per the attacheddraft be eimsidered ag au alternatiVe method of reaching the needy child'.

. MARVIN LEVIN,Program Operations Branch.

. To ,Plate School LunelOireelors:The Department recognizes that there are instances when the 'formal applica-

thin pilicedures for a free- or reduced-price lunch are not operationally practicalor do not sticeeed in reaching: a school's universe of needy children. Altlunigh*categorical certification is autharized, there are time when a particularly largetarget grinip is either led in one of the accepted categories or the State or 'pealfood authorities have not recognized the special target group as an acceptablecategory. Far exanuile, although Indian and migrant children are generallyfor a free- or reduced -price meal, many do not apply, some are not eligible, andneither group is in a recognized catekory. Schools having a large number ofIndians and migrants frequently encounter administrative andsocial problemswhen hnplementhrg.a formal application procesA.

_ Although local authorities can declare a.child eligible for a free- or reduced-pricelunch without a formal application, many art reluctant to do this due to theirconcern for possible audit and review objections that may be raised at a later date.The following prcedlite can serve an a guideline for the certification of a child,as eligible for ttili'rce- and reduced-price lunch on a basis other than a formalapplication.

v.

35

GUIDELINES YOR CERTIFICATION 'BY MEMO

1. Section 245.6(c)-9n providing free or reducetprice lunches to eligiblechildren, the sehool food authority peed not require. the subridesion of an applica-tion if alternative methods will expedite eligibility determinations. The schoolfood authorities may determine that the children or certain categories of childrenunto deafly meet the school's eligibility standards." .t (team situations and under Certain conditions the above-quoted regula-IL as the authority for certifying children as eligible for a free rred price meal without formal application.

3. In our opinion, implementation of the authority to certify children withoutformal application or categorical certification can be satisfactorily justified insituations similar or identical to those described below and satisfactorily mom-

. plished by having thar local school food authorities complete a memo similar tothe attached example. ,

4. A memo (as an alternative to a formal application) certifying a child aseligible for a free or reduced price meal can be justified in the following situations:

(a) Known or suspected family illiteracy which prevents familrmembera fromunderstanding or completing a formal application, 't

(1) Generally recognized tradItional.or cultural patterns which have histor-ically inhibited or limited formal application,

The balarke of situations are optional (ley through (D).(e) Welfare and title I reeipients when categorical certification of these target

group.4 is not a local school food authority policy.(d) When family Members refuse to apply.' and school' authoritiea '118;0 a

definite belief. that.the child is in need.(c) When the number of .applicants or potential eligibles is above the State's

average (for the last fiseal year) and the local school food, authorities cannot..process and evaluate. the influx ()f applications in 1t manner consistent with good.administrative principles,

(f) Other unusual situations (specify).r. Although certification by merno can be justified in the above situations,

local sehool authorities should make every effort to ,pbtain a formal application.If and when a resprinsible family member visits the school or if and when thesehmil social worker visits the home the family should be encouraged (and, ifnecessary, it,sisted) to complete a formal application. If the data contained onthe formal application results in the child being ineligible for a free or reducedprice meal, the school authorties.should take appropriate action.;,lie , _

SubjiTt : Certification of ribove stndcat for lunch at_ .

4t, Urea or reduced) . oanoan04On the basis of factors indicated below, the above referenced child is certified

as eligible to receive a . lunch at cost.oircreauccar', (umOunt) .

It is further certified that in the opinion of the sehool authorities, the abovereferenced child would probably meet the eligibility criteria for the.lunch if a formal application were completed.

Justification for Memo Certification (indicate applicable factors)

A. ,lustifieation:1. Family members known or suspected to be illiterate and unable to complke

and/or submit an application.2. Recognized cultural or traditional faCtorsPreVent or -inhibit formal sub-

missio of an application.3. Family member unable fo-ciiirii to school fOr ass stance in completing to

. fornu4 applivatitewithout experiencing Jinaneial loss,4. Fand ely-mm bera for reasons have not or refuse to submit an

aplieation. _ _ .

Appropriate school authorities have not been able to date to make to homevisit and assist the family with completing an application:

13. Factors of eligibility indicative of probable eligibility, by local schoolpublished criteria:'

1. Data in Student's personnel file indicate child would meet eligibility criteriaif formal application made.;

2. Local eligibility criteria assumed to twply. on 11SiS of following. (See footnote1):

sec next page for footnote.

30

(a) Descriptive data Vased on home visit clear plies! eligibility.(b) Data on familtemployment2 and elm im yie) External information on family (Vis. creditors, title welfare agencies,'

medical reports, etc.) clearly imply eligibility.it 3. Child a physical.appearance and ischoo behavior is such as to clearly imply

the child is eligible.24, Child certified at6tiier NSLP school by a criteria consistent with this

sghool's criteria).5. Child certified previous year and data on hand indicates no change from

previous yettr.lt6, Family inillitrvieFei,(at school or home) indicate* family should be on welfare

and child should be certified (interview should be recorded somewhere cr permu(e)conducting interview should be available to provide specific data, if requested).

7. Other . (Specify In detail).

Howard P. Davis,Deputy AdministratorRe: PARTICIPATION, or ESEA SUMMER, SCII0OLS.IN VIE SPECIAL FOOD S9VICE

Puo0RAltRecently we have noted a trend for ESEA title I summer schools to be termed

"cultural enrichment" programs rather than "summer schools" in the traditionalsense of the word. This nomenclature makes them eligible for .special food serviceprogramiunds, and since ESEA funds oxo'generally tight now, au increasing num-ber of Boards of Education are applying to the Vanik program for food seryiees inthese ESEA title I programs.

We see three basic ways to landie this situation. These are:. 1. We could deal with these applications on an individual basis as they arrive.Although this approach they be administratively expedient, it would cause adefinite impact on the total amount of money available to other applicants.

2. We could sot an overall administrative policy stating that ESEA. programsIn schools are ineligible for the special food service program. We feel this decisinnwould trigger a severe reaction. at this time and cause much adverse publicity.

3. We could determine that these programs are ineligible for the Special FoodService Program but are eligible to participate hit the National School LunchProgram and encourage this participation.

We feel the last option would be the most advisable course of action at thistime and, with your approval, will proceed accordingly.

If we run into serious objections, we would fall back and regroup.Ilnunnicr D. Rannx,

* Director, Child Nutrition Ditision.

Ni.,1M110

Item (11)April 14, 1072

1011.114m1.110=1.

Item (12)Pitur ge TIM NIXON ADMINISTRATION PROGEAM

(May 7, 1969)

Hi:Animus THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NEITSITION AND IIIIMAN NEEDS

(Page 2529)

Secretary Fawn. I can also respond to that, Senator. If we could get fullfundingfor the free and reduced price school lunch program it would eertainlyijielp interms of taking the pressure off of title I funds, of which $35 million to $4044illionare now going into food services.

Seventy percent of that goes into the Southern States. It would give us ranchmore flexibility under title I, if we could got the free lunch program fully funded.

I On bariide, Indicate source dlustificritfoll for eligibility, viz., if school record indicate.' which recordIf home rLit or school vPit. Indicate source of report, etc. Justification shoal,) be refillable lax a epecifia9011117e OrNillree9, althugh it Is not essential that the source bell written record.

For example, If occupation and maximunfwage scale is known, it way be poielide to approximate fam-ily Income.

40 a.

37

Senator DAVITS. Cdtdd we, add another objective to the objectives we are allpledging ourselves tot and that is to see if we 0.11.11 relieve funds devoted or ear-marked for Fed,eral Aid to Education from. the drain a school lunch or ether food

. programs? I;

Secretary Fixes. Yes, sir. 7

Senator JAVITS. And you say you estimate about $35 or $40 million a year isis now being diverted for tlat purpose? . -.

Secretary' FINCH. Yes, sir, under title I. 'Senator jAvirs. It indicates yaw clearly that much of a short. call in the scheol

lunch program. .

Secretary Frtion. Right. ',1/4

(Page 2533)., . .

Secretary'Firien. If I may respond fully, as I said earlier in response to Senatorjavit's question I -think it is the wrong use for title I funds to go into these foodprograms. I think we should fully fund the agricultural program, the free lunchprogram

'and use title I.for the 'things he is talking about, glasses and..other

remedial work. .

I think it-is a great mistake and it is akind of hypocrisy to use title I money forfood services programs. That is why 'I made the reply I didto Senator Javits.

So my. response is we should fully fund the school lunela programs. There are nocivil rights compliance problems there, since school lunch is exempted from titleVL So- SecretarpHardin is not confronted with the sa e problem, I am with title1 food programs. cz

Senator TALMADGE. It is Federal money going to th same schools,.Senator MONDALE, Might I ask a question on my t' e., Mr. Chairman?

CDo I understand that last response to mean that if we funded the school break- !

t and school lunch program under those programs rather than through title Iof the ESEA, the cutoff of funds to those schools would not reduce the nutritionproblem, at all? 1

Item (13)'FOOD PROGRAM ANALYSIS

A primary goal of the emergenay food and medical services (EFMS) prggramhas been to `identify local and natidnal weaknesses in the food assistance pro-grams!' Operating Since_ August 1971, under an EFMS contract-grant from theAssociated City-County Economic 'Development'_ Cap. of 'Hidalgo County,the Llano Estacado Development Committee, Inc., a title III-B grantee. on theTexas south plains, has been working toward improvenent of the USDA feedittgprograms in- its project area, as wellas developing new food projects of the Self-help variety, and at the same time providing emergenc -.food voucher assistanceto the area's farmworkers. Under a supplemental co tract-grant commencingJanuary 1, 1972, Llano Estacado has concentrated on cooperative businessdevelopment and a systematic analysis and document tion of problems, relatedto the USDA food programs. It is that docunientatio which is here presented.

Information on food program weaknesses has be documented on formsprepared by -our agency for that'purpose. These forms have been placed in thefour EFMS ,outreach offices and carried 'by outreach staff. Persons who haveencoimteria-14*. hculties with the food programs have been encouraged to fill outthe forms andNign their names to.,them. Program cate ones which were empha-sized were the food stamp, food, distribution (comm clity), and school lunchpregrams. .

Of the seven .counties in the center of the- .Llano Estacado project area (Onlyfour presently have representation on the general boa d), six are served by thefood distribution program (Bailey, Crosby, Hockley, Lainb, Lubbock, and Terry),whit only one operates the food stamp program (Lynn. County). For that reason,the ajority of cases documented relate to the former pregram and will be covered

jfirst. Input on the school lunch program is presented last, followed y a briefs Mimi. In all cases, superscripts refer to the "State exit of Circumstances".forms on which' documentations were recorded and w ch, are included in theappendix.

1. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

Probably the first program irregularity documented i.1 n the food (commodity)distribution program was that of no fixed commodity office hours in CrosbyCounty (Prosbyton, Tex.). As,long ago as September 1971, the Llano Estacado .

Development Committee emergency food and medical services coordinator wastold by the commodity authorized representative there that the 1 day a weekthat her office was open ray changed each month, and that she had no idea from

_one month to the next what day that would be. In January 1972, the Llanogstacado office was told that applications were taken on Thursdays; 'yet theprevious Thursday a family seeking assistance was told to come back the followingweek becau'se the commodity staff .had no time to fill out ipplications.". Thepsactice of having arbitrary application/distribution days and office hours, whileperhaps convenient for the authorized representative, ,4nakes program benefitshardly accessible to the poor. Scheduled appointments are fine for those currentlyenrolled in the Commodity program, but new. fate lies (in particular, the migrantfarmworkeT) are frustrated in their efforts to get food assistance.

Closely related to the problem of irregulbx and unposted office hours is that ofthe absence pf-any identification of the commodity program headquarters, againin Crosby. County, but also in Terry Cotmty (Brownfield, Tex.) and in HockleyCounty (Levelland, Tex.). As of the end of January, there were no signs whateveridentifying the USDA commodity distribution program offices in those countiesas such (please refer to photographs in appendix). When the Crosby and Terryprograms were in the courthouse of their respective counties, It might have beenexcusable, but now the poor (again those most affected are the new arrivals td the'area) are left to their own devices to track down, small, 'secluded Offices. Nor isthe telephone directory of much help to the needy bf. flockley County, for thereis hot even a street number on the commodity facility: in Levelland. A sad excusefor the lack of clear markings was offered by the assistant commodity representa-tive in Deaf Smith County (another county to the north with no. identifiable

ilding, located behind a laundromat) in a remark to the BEMS coordinatol. ongust 30,. 1971; "I don't know how they find the place, but judging,from our

caseload, they manage to locate us somehoW."Certification procedures have presented another common difficulty in the

commodity program, most notably in Terry County. Last fall, numerous butundocumented cases were reported alleging that the program's authorized repre-sentative had to consult with the county judge and commissioners before approvingor denying commodity applications..She; also told the EFMS coordinator in aninterview on August 23, 1971, that certification of families not on public assistancewas, indeed, carried out by the commissioners' court. This practice, which tends todelay-provision of food assistance to needy

isdue to infrequent commis-

sioners' meetings (once or twice monthly), s .contrary to the Texas State planof operation (section IV, page 1), which states that! the "appropriate governingbody (city council and/or cominkrioners' court)" shall "* * * 'designate someperson with full authority to act in all matters pertaining to the commodityprogram * * *" In the same interview, the Terry County authorized representa-tive further stated that Terry County Commissioners had established a 100 -household or 400-person caseload ceiling on the food distribution program. Statedejartment of public welfare "Monthly USDA. Commodity Receipt, Inventory,

istribution Report" (see letter F, appendix) for the month of July 1971,confirms that Terry County, with a 1970 Census population of 14,118 had certi-fied only 85 households. It is interesting to contract that caseload with that ofnearby Bailey _County (Muleshoe, Tex.), a county of 8,487 residents, which certi-fied during that same month 191 households. Crosby County, population 9,085,certified 167.

The caseload ceiling was apparently, lifted after September 1, however, as thecounty acknowledged institution of State eligibility guidelines, and a caseloadcount in January 1072, shows 218 households certified for Terry County. Thischange of policy was publicly announced, coincidentally enough, at a meeting ofthe commissioners' court called and attended by about 150 members of the Ciuda-danos Unidos club and members of the Llano Estacado development committeestaff and county advisory board.

In the State of Texas, it is general policy that those households on publicassistance (programs administered tiliough the State department of public wel-fare) are automatically eligible for commodity assistance. Yet in Terry Countyand Lamb County, State welfare recipients have been denied commodities.Letters of inquiry produce only a restatement of "official" policy (see letters I, J).

A problem of the most serious nature, and which has occurred primarily inCrosby County, is that new applicants for food assistance must wait up to amonth to receive their commodities following certification. The problem from the

I 2

39

county's' point of view, at least prior to December 1971, was that lack of storagespace prohibited stocking-more food than that required to supply the existingcaseload, Yet the district distributor in Lubbock, Tex., has stated (letter. Dthat his office "attempts at all times to maintain a (sic) adequate supply ofU.S.D.A. commodities with a 1- month 'buffer' for insurance. * * *" Two casesdocumented, however, show that even after the program was removed to.iinorespacious quarters there is still nearly a month's delay in receipt of food.

Many families in this area complained of the short supply of food items dis-tributed. While amounts of available items actually issued have not been verifiedbeyond such phrases as "not getting all items" or "not getting amounts requiredfor a month ", data on the number of food items made available under the programis known. Officials'ofthe program in Crosby County liave stated that not all fooditems are shipped frOna Lubbock. And the record shows that last summer only 17types of food were distributed therc (letter F). Yet Bailey County. which isalso, in Commodity Distribution 'District No 610.. issued a total of 26 food itemsin the same month. An exchange of letters (appendix) has not done much to altirthe problem.

Related to the quantity of food, available is its quality. Numerous reports,,both documented and verbal/ .indicate that various forms of abnormalities have-.been discovered in the food disttibuted under the program, notably mold and cer-tain. animal organisms on and in the food itself. In August, weevils,were found inmany sacks of flour in the distribution office in Terry County. In November, about80 pounds of moldy cheese were issued in Crosby County; and some blocks wereissued in .Bailey County (see letter G). Through the fall,and early in 1972, scat-tered reports of similar irregularitieS were reported.

One thud kspect of the commodity program as operated in our project areawhich must be noted is that of mistreatment of applicants and recipients byprogram personnel. As stated in "Standards of Excellence for Necdy FamilyFood Distribution Programs" of the Food and Nutrition Service, personnelconnected with the program should show courtesy to all applicants and recipients.Such phrases as "no time to fill out applications", "shouldn't be causing so muchtrouble for the Food Commodities Program", and "get Gut of this office or I'llcall the law" do not seem to fall within the limit of courtesy, nor would they be.expected front a public social service employee.

II. FOOD STAMP raoGnaid

In Lynn County (Tahoka, Tex.), our only project county currently handlingthe food stamp program, the only documented irregularity is that of office hours."And, as of the date of, this report, no further clarification of their office hoursand days has been obtained. This practice is equally as inconvenient to foodstamp program participants as to those in the commodity program, and for thesame reasons.

III. SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

Some suggestion of abnormalities in the school (free) lunch program in theMuleshoe Independent School District (Bailey County) wcro received after theend of the 1970-1971 school year, but only verbally. One fully documented caseoccurring in the present school year, involving retraction of free-lunch statusbecause of a child's refusal to work, has been noted.ig This .particular case hasbeen corrected, but it is still unclear as to whether or not the underlying causeof that itieident has beer( rectified.

By and large the school lunch program lia:s been the feed,ng program mostutilized of the three discussed here. Program operations seem 'in general to besatisfactory. The characteristic which seems to distinguish the school lunch pro -.gram most markedly from the others, and which undoubtedly accounts' for itsrelatively high participation rate, is that a child who qualifies on paper must becertified. That is, the burden of proof as to eligibility is shifted. In the schoollunch program, it woulli he up to the school to prove an applicant is not qualifiedto receive assistance, While in the food distribution and food stamp programs itis up to the poor to prove that they do qualify. The effect of this operational

dissimilarity can be demonstrated as follows: From a 2-months' sample of datacollected in distribution of emergency food voucher assistance byour agency, thefollowing comparative statistics on participation in food programs in four countiesare presented on the next page.

V

4

40_

School tuna program Commodity distribution offood stamp progrim

Number of Number Percent Number of Number Percentchildren ages perticipating participation persons, all partitIpatIng participation

egos

gCount

110 41 185"7192 . 66 34

t 37304 76

1425

81-ynn County 163 65 40 248 71 29Terry County 175 85 49 240 22

cc:oxcart:4nm

The Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, OperatingExpense Funds for States To Expand and Improve Commodity Distribution toHouseholds (Exhibit C) states the qualities and charaoterisitcs which FNS hasdetermined represent an exemplary food distribution program, including thefollowing:

(1) Interested and capable programs officials and staff who are sympatheticwith program goals and strive to attain them,

(2) Personnel at appropriate levels are required to have sufficient knowledge ofcommodity distribution program objectives, State policies, and handbook pro-predures to accomplish the duties of their position.

(3) Courtesy shown to all applicants and recipients.(4) Signs posted conspicuously to identify the program and-days and hours of

distribution. -

(5) Adequate supply of all available USDA foods on band at all times.(6) Out-of-condition commodities disposed of in accordance with USDA:

approved methods.Each of these points has been violated to at least the degree that applicants or

recipients have not-been properly served by the food distribution program. Andwhile not part of the "law" or the program regulations, these stands.rds are es-sential to meeting the goal of the program, which is "to provide the nutritiverequirements needed by persons whose economic circumstances preclude theirbuying the amount and variety of food needed to maintain good health.", At leastthe first three points, and violations of them,are equally applicable to the foodstamp and school luneh programs of the counties under discussion.

Tice people of this area not only are entitled to but are desperately in need ofadequate food assistance. In communities where human compassion toward otherhuman beings, esirecially the migrant farmworker, is so scarce a resource, andwhere wages are paid on the basis, of farmer-to-fp.rmer competition rather than theminimum living needs of the worker, _the USDA food assistance programs representone of the few hopes for survival. Nothing silo* of careful, critical program and'personnel evaluation is going to remedy the problems outlined so briefly here, andit is hoped that that process will be begun.

Mumcsnom, Tax., September 4, 1971.Mr. WILLIAM M. HERREN,Director of Commodity Distribution,Austin, Tea.

DEAR MR. HannoN: In coordinating the emergency food and medical servicesprogram for the Llano Estacada Development Committee, a title IHB projectcovering several south plains counties, it has come to my attention that the foodcommodity program in Crosby County, Tex., continues to make it difficult forneedy families to receive food assistance. The specific complaint seems to be thatthe authorized renresentative claims to have In stock only enough commoditiesto supply her preMt caseload, so that it may take up to 2 months before a newly-applying family can get help. -

I understand that the Crosby County program has been named in complaintsbefore, and that at least one investigation has been completed' by your office.I would like to have word both on the complaint and the official outcome of thatinquiry. The fact is that in the abienee of other emergency resources, a familyin such a county cannot survive while additional food is being awaited. Manyother counties are able to provide commodities immediately upon certifying afamily, and this practice is in the spirit of the program's purposes.

44

4iI would appreciate a response from your office as soon as possible, as we are

approaching a critical food crisis period for the farmworker, and this problem willundoubtedly directly affect the people.

Thank you for your time, and action.Very truly yours, .ar BRIAN. R. CRADDOCK.

STATIC DIPARTIAIGNT OF PUBLIC WKLTARK,r_.-1Auatin,,Tex., September ,8I, T 71.

Mr. BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,Muleshoe, Tex.

DEAR MR. CRADDOCK: Piettse refer to yOur letter ,dated Septem*- 4, 1971,regarding the Crosby Countot Commodity Distribution Program.

One item which has and csentinues to be of concernto this agency concerningthe Crosby County prograis the fact that this program does not accept all ofthe items made available by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Heretofore the Zgibility standards in use in Crosby County did not auto-matically qualify bide assistance hou'iseholds. Recent changes in connectionwith the eligibility criteria now make all public assistance cases, as defined,eligible to participate in the commodity distribution program.

As you would expect, this agency strongly encourages all commodity distri-bution programs to make distribution of donated foods immediately upon certifi-cation of eligibility. Undoubtedly, this is not being carried out in all instances.

Please advise if this office can be of any assistance in regards to improving theCrosby County Commodity Distribution Program.

Yours very truly,E. WAYNE ICUYIANDALL

Assistant Director, Commodity Distribution Divi

LLANO ESTACADO DRVELOPIIENT COMMITTED, INC.,Muleshoe, Tex., September ES, MI

MT. .1`. R. CHILTON,Food Commodity Distribution OfficeTexas State Department of Public Tirelfare, Lubbock, Tex.

DEAR Ma. CRIteroN: In outreach work with the emergency food and medicalservices program of the Llano Estacado Development Committee, a recurrentproblem with respect to the commodity distribution program is coming to light;namely, the inavailability of certain types of food products at many of the distri-bution centers in our project area. There seems to be a discrepancy, however,between reasons given for the shortage by the authorized representatives and thoseprovided by the State commodity office of the Texas Department of PublicWelfare. Authorized representatives at the county level have said they do notget the items they order; Austin says the counties are not ordering the full lineof commodities available.

It is to try to improve. the program, as is the intent of USDA and the Stateoffice, that I am requesting copies of both the orders requested and the recordsof food items shipped to the commodity offices, for the past 3 months, in thefollowing counties: Bailey, Crosby, Hockley, Lantb, Lynn, Terry, and DeafSmith, Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,

EFMS Coldinatot:

STATE 'DEPARTMENT OF PUDIAC WKLIPARE,COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION DIM/CT No. 010,

Lubbock, Tex., Septembcr 29, 19714MI. BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,Coordinator, Llano Estacado Development Committee, Inc.,Muleshoe Tex.

DeAR IVIR. CRADDOCK: Thatik you for your letter of September 23 concerningthe availability of certain types of food products to Bailey, Crosby, Hockley,Lamb, Lynn, Terry and Deaf Smith Counties. Please accept my apologies for the

.4

42

delay In answering your letter. The end of each month is usually my busy timeand the press of bttsine5s has prevented my.reply.

Lynn County has not been a part of the commodity,distribution program formany months since. undertook the food stamp program over a year ago.Deaf Smith County falls in the Amarillo Commodity Distribution. District, soI am unable to comment concerning that county program.

As you did not specifically name the county or counties experiencing shortages,I must reply in generalities. While this office attempts at all times to maintain anadequate supply of USDA commodities with a 1 -month "buffer" for insurance,there have been t% few instances due to late arrival of rail shipments when ourinventory level fell below what was required to allocate a maximum rate to' allcounty outlets. In such instances, our allocation to county outlets is based on apro rata basis so no county is treated inequitably. The county, in turn, releasesto its recipients on a pro. rata basis.

Of the counties you named, I am aware of only' one county distribution programthat does not request all of the food items, made available monthly. It is myunderstanding they have limited storage facilities and are unable to accept allitems.

Thank you again for your letter. Your interest is appreciated. Be assured ofour interest, in this common concern.

Sincerely,.1. R. CHILTON, Distributor.

LLANO ESTACADO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE,Muleshoe, Tex., October 4, 11)71.

E. WAYNE KuyxnNnAta.,,Assistant Director, Commodity Distribution Division,Stale Departitzent of Public Welfare, Austin7Tex.

DEAR MR. KIIYKENDALL: Thank you for your letter of September k explainingsome of the difficulty with the Crosby County commodity program. We hay&had indications in our entire area of non-availability of some food items, and iWan effort to get to the heart of the problem, .I addressed a letter to the CommodityDistribution District Office in' Lubbock, requesting copies of-.monthly food ordersand shipping manifests from and to the distribution. centers in various south;plains counties.

Apparently Mr. Chilton does not. wish to make public information available ordid not understand my request (see enclolures). I think this is the only way the .

numerous discrepancies are going to be explained, and I would like to request thehelp of your office in obtaining copies of orders and shippers for the past 3 months

. for Bailey, Crosby, nockley, Lamb, and Terry Counties.Very truly yours,

Mr. BRIAN R. CRADDOCK

BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,EFM 8. Co-ordinator.

8VATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,Austin, Tex., October 7,1971.

Muleshoe, Tex.DEAR Mn. CRADDOCK: Reference is' made to your letter dated Octo r 4, 1071,

wherein you requested information in regards to commodity distribution ramsin the Texas plains area.

I am enclosing copies of certain monthly reports submitted by the counties inquestion, which hopefully will prOuide the information you need. These reports,I believe, you will find to-be more car less self-explanatory; however, should therebe any _questions after reviewing same, please advise.

YoUts Very truly,E. WAYNE ICUYKENDALL,

Assistant Director, Commodity Distributton Division.

46

43

LLANO ESTACADO DEVEX4OPMENT COMAIMEE,Muleshoe, Tex., December 2, 1971.

Mr. J. I. CHILTON;Commodity DistributionSlate Department of Public Welfare, Lubbock T'ex.`

DENII MR. CHILTON NwO specific problems associated with tlio food distributionprogram have come up in the past month and have been brought to my attention.In accordance with the goals of the emergency food and medical.services program,this inquiry is directed toward your office for clarification and action.

First of all, approximately 80 pounds of cheese with an unusual amount ofmold on each block was distributed to recipients in Crosby County during themonth of November. Also, there were some reports that cheese in a similar condi-tion was issued in the Bailey' County program. Regardless of whether or not thecheese is "just as good" when the mold hasbeen pared off, the U.S. Department ofAgriculture does not condone the distrjbution of substandard commodities.

The second problem is in regard to 'the quantity of food stocked and providedby the program in Crosby County. The Crosby County commissioners last montharranged for, new quarters for the food distribution program in that county in aneffort to increase availability of all food types carried in the program. Yet in themonth of November, several families received only half of the regular rod allot-ment, and then only 16 food itedis were distribute& ReCipients were told that itwas because the district distribution centerin Lubbock lacked full supplies of allcommodities, On behalf of the people, I would like to know if that is the ease.

I would sincerely appreciate- .prompt clarification of these two issues. Thecpeople not only are entitled to but for nutrition's sake need full quantities of allfoods available under the program, and food that is in good, healthful condition.

Very sincerely,BRIAN B, CRADDOCK,

E.F.M.S. Co-Ordznalq.

STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, .

COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION DISTRICT No. 610,Lubbock, Tex., December 3, 1971.

Mr. BRIAN It CaAnnocx, .

Co-Ordinator, Llano Estacado Development Committee,Muleshoe, Tex.

4

DnAu ME:CRADDOCK: Thank you for your letter of December 2, concerningcheese Mold encounteredat Crosby and Bailey County commodity programs andquantities oCUSDA commodities issued 'at Crosby County commodity distribu- "bon program.

I think it unnecessary to assure you. that the' concern of both your office andmine is one and the same, adequate and nutritional allocations to be made to alleligible persons:. I was aware that both Crosby and Bailey Counties had eneOuntered some Cheesemold and in each instance recommended that the local health officer be contacted.I am really at a loSs to explain the cause of this cheese mold and am pleased to notethis is only the second such instance in the past 2 years or so.

The problem of the quantity "of. food stocked and provided in the CrosbyCounty program can probably be traced to "timing." When allocations werefigured and presented this county outlet before and at the first of November, thequantities were based on a participation of 500 persons. At that time,. I did notknow (nor have I been notified since) just when new and huger quarters would beavailable. I understand from a telephone conversation that' I've just had withJudge Work of CroSbY County that they have now moved in to these tiew quarters.

In October, Crosby County distributed food to 369 persons, something like11,000 pounds; while in November they distributed to 341 persons, around 22,000pounds. I feel that oven more progress. will be zpade in the month of December.Mrs. Vera Flowers, Crosby County distributor, was advised by me some time agoto request the quantities 015' felt were required and this office would honor hetrequest. In reviewing Crosby Ccunty's commodity report for the month ofNovember 1971, I note that distribution was made of some 10 items, and hadthere been 32 cans more of those items in "short supply", there would have beenquantity enough to distribute qt all. In either words, 646 persons were fed; but

4.7

44

only 504 cans ozi hand to distribute. An exception was dry beans,, where lees thanone-hall were on hand for distribution. This was due to our having not receivedour shipment of dry beans in Ulna foi'distribution. When our warehouse inventoryof et commodity item becomes less thaw the quantity required for full allocation,that commodity is prorated to all outlets on a pro rata share-and-share Mike basis..

Your concern it appreciated and we will again assure you our interest in a goodcommodity distribution program in this district. Sometime, when you're inLubbock, do come by our office for a cup of coffee. Perhaps wo can explore areasof common concern and action for meeting the needs of people of this area.

Sincerely,J, R. CHILTON.

LLANO ESTACADO DEVELOPMENT-COMMITTEE, INC.,Muleshoe, Tex., December 20, 1971.

LAMB COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,County CourthouseLittlefield, Tex.

Dr,Ait Sins: In connection with m work with the Llano Estacado Develop-ment Committee, a migrant agency of

ythe U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, I

am writing concerning the food distribution program in Lamb County, one of12 counties in our project area.

According to the State department of public welfare's plan of operation for: thecommodity distribution program (Mrs. Doris Frey, Lamb County's authorizedrepresentative, is required to have. a copy), "(t)he governing body of the city orcounty may, at its discretion and on a blanket basis, include or exclude recipientsof Pubic Assistance and their normal dependents as eligible to receive commodi-ties without reference to income or other need factors" (Section IV, Page 12).

On behalf of families who have applied for foci(' assistance under the commodityprogram and who have contacted our office for clarification of eligibility, I wouldlike to have word as to the policy presently in effect in Lamb County in relation toboth county Lind State welfare recipients; namely, if they are either de facto.eligible for food commodities or all ineligible. A prompt reply to this inquiry wilibe most appreciated.

Very sincerely,

Mr. BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,Muleshoe, Tex.

DEAR SIR: Your letter of December 20, 1971, to Lamb County commissionersin regard to policy presently in effect in Lamb County fol. eligibility to receivecommodities was referred to my office for reply.

A letter dated September 3, 1071, from State department of public welfare toall authorized representatives of commodity distribution programs reads "Allpublic assistant cases, as defined, are automatically eligible to receive USDAdonated commodities."

Upon receiving this letter Lamb County immediatcfly abided by rules as we leavealways done.

Sincerely,Mrs. DORIS FREY, Authorized Representative.

BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,.111 Co-Orelinator.

001.111. 0.1011.110

-1

COUNTY or LAMB,Littlefield, Tex., December 22,1071.

LLANO ESTACADO DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, INC.,Muleshoe, Tex., October 14, 1071.

Mr. Tos O. JINKS,/010Director of Special- Programs,

Muleshoe Independent School District, Muleshoe, Tex.Dunn ME. JIN KS: It has come to my attention that on October 11, a student

at Mary de Sham Elementary School, Muleshoe, Tex. was denied free lunchtickets, for which he had been found to be eligible, because of his refusal to con-tinue working in the school lunch room. Originally volunteering for this duty.he was not permitted to rotate weekly from one task to another, and he conse-

. 48

45

quently expressed his intention of quitting. It was at that point that he wastold he would not be issued further free meal tickets. This incident, which hasbeen fully documented, involves a practice which. is in direct violation of title 7,section 246 of the Code of Federal Itegulations.

It is my responsibility, and the intention of the Maley County AdvisoryBoard of the Llano Estacado Development Committee, a title In? migrant)project of the Office of Economic Opportunity of which I ain an employee, to beaware of instanctk where children are prohibited from taking advantage ofprograms created aid operated for their benefit. The fair hearing procedure,which is designed for that purpose, will when necessary be utilized to its fullextent to ensure the implementation of the law.

Very sincerely, .

BRIAN R. CRADDOCK,Co-Ordinator, Emergency nod and Medical Service.

U.S. DEPARTMENT Or AGRICULTURE,FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,Washington, 'D.C., October 28, 1071.

Mr. nItIAN R. 'CRADDOCIC,Coordinator, Emergency Food and Medical Services, Llano Estacado Development

Committer, Inc., Muleshoe, Tex.DEAR Mn. CRADDOCK: Thank you for the copy of your letter to Mr. Turn G.

Jinks concerning a student at Mary do Shazo Elementary School who WAS denieda free lunch, oven though he was otherwise eligible, when lie expressed his intentionto quit working in the school cafeteria.

As you may know, schools, participating in the national school lunch program,agree, among other things, to provide lunches free or at a reduced price to childrendetermined by local school authorities to be unable to pay the full price. A school'spolicy for determining eligibility for free or reduced price lunches must conformto certain general guidelines sot forth by the Department of Agriculture.

Children who are eligible for free or reduced price lunches are not to work inany capacity except at the express request of the parents. Parents are to clearlyunderstand that the children, would receive a free or reduced price lunch ovenif the child did not work.

Since the above incident is a direct violation of the national school lunchprogram regulations, wo are asking our Southwest regional office to contact

Sr. Charles M. Hicks'

director, school lunch program, Texas Education Agency,to investigate and to take all necessary corrective actions.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Wo are hopeful that anyprocedural irregularities that may exist, in the Mary do Shazo Elementary *hootwill be corrected in the very near future.

Sincerely,Mumma, L. BOREX,

Director, Child Nutrition Division.

Item (14)Q,

Subject: Migrant program.To: Regional program directors, Child nutrition program.

We recently received a copy of a master special food service program contractthat has been executed between the California State school lunch director andthe California title I migrant coordinator,

Under this contract, the title I migrant coordinator provided to the Statelunch director a list of service institutions by naine, address, and ADA,signed the application-agreement on behalf of all institutions in their program,and was obligated to submit a consolidated monthly claim. The State Eellool'lunch director, in turn, encumbered a specified amount of money in accordancewith agreed upon reimbursement rates.

We believe this typo of operational procedure should be considered by thoseStates and regions which have a large number of programs sponsored by title Imigrant coordinators. If you or your States desire more information on thissubject please lot us know.

GENE P. Dreimr,Chief, Program Operations Branch, Child Nutrition Division.

Nov. 10, 1971

flO 201- 72

.49

46

, Item (15)

Common:TY Itiromwrielf

1. Coordinators will be reqtiested by HEW, Washington to obtain add retain.appropriate USDA applipation forms covering food services.

2. AU applicants for title I migrant programs will complete (at he time ofcompletion of the title I application) an application (USDA) for t e food com-ponent part of the title I programs.

3. Coordinators will: .

"A. Forward the USDA application to the State educational directori (Or aregional office where applie,gmo for a decision on the food component part.

Retain a file copy of 1-,MDA application for audit purposes.; 4. UDSA officials and State agency officials will be requested by USDA to:

A. Expedite replies to applications forwarded by coordinators.B. Give special priority to your programs.5. Coordinators will advise the ITSDA regional office and HEW Washington

in the event Slat no action is taken on your request within 30 days of applicationor in the event that an application is denied.

6. ,USDA Washington will request expedition or recmderation ;wherenecessary.

V Migrant program requests made directly to USDA will be evaluated byState or USDA. officials to determine possibility of title I funding involvement.If possibility of title I involvement, State of USDA officials will telephone orwrite coordinators to determine interest in a.ssiating. If coordinator is interested,program request will be forwarded to coordidator for processing in accordance.with steps 2 and 3 above. If coordinator is not interested, application will bebandied in accordance withnormal USDA procedures. A letter to applicant willbe sent by USDA or State directors whenever application is forwarded tocoordinator.

8.' Except in very unusual cases, USDA will provide the food assistance partand the coordinator will meet the labor and institutional costs.

9. Coordinators are to be advised to apply any savings on food toward now orexpanded programs.

10. Nonfood assistance from USDA will be handled in the same manner.11. Differences, difficulties, and problems are to be referred by the coordinators

to HIM Washington and an attempt will be made to resolve them by our jointefforts.

. Item (16)

DEPAIITIVIENT OF HEADT11, EDIICATI01% AND WELFARE,OFFICE OY TIM SECItETARY,

May 3, 1071.To: Herbert Rorei, USDA.Through: Richard E. Orton, OCD; OS.From: Dominic, J. Mastrapasqua, 001), OS, IMPD.Subject: Migrant Head Start Centers.

This is to confirm conversations between our respective staffs on food assistanceprograms for migrant children served in Office of Child Development'sHeadatartprogram. We understand that USDA will cover expenditures for food and nonfoodRents in each of our migrant Headstart programs.

I am submitting this proposal for your review and hope that it would serve asa working agreement between USDA and Office of Child Development IncliaUP..and Migrant Programs Division (IMPD).

1. Ali migrant grantees sponsoring neadstart programs and serving food willapply to USDA or State agencies as appropriate for the reimbursement of food

--rests.2. The Office of Child Development will provide the funds for Mer and edu,

cational costs..3. Migrant grantees will submit their requests for food and nonfood items,

equipment, to the State agency or USDA regional. offices. Nonfood assistancerequests' will be submitted at the saute time requests for food are submitted.However, a separate application 111114 be submitted for nonfood assistance.

4. Requests from grantees will contain the maximum rate if they serve breakfast,15 cents; leneh, 30 cents; supper, ,30 cents; and two snacks, 20 cents. Certaintypes of surplus food commodities can be requested-to aupplement the food

.pur-

chased r

59 r.

47

3. OCWIMPD will mail out copi of USDA applications (if appropriate) topotential grantees.

-6. A copy of the application requesting funds Iron USDA or theStale agencywill be submitted with the funding request to OCD. OCWIMPD will informUSDA Headquarters that certain Headstart programs have requested fromregional USDA office or State Department of Education funds to cotraskfood andnonfood expenditures.

7. Training and techniCal assistance in food preparation and purchasing will beavailable to grantees through USDA regional offices on a request basis.

We expect to establish programs in the States of Oregon, Washington, Ohio,Wisconsin, Texas, .North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota, Illinois, Florida,New Jersey

'and New York. The apprOkimate number of children that will be

served is between 1,200 and 1,300.Your cooperation and the cooperation of the USDA is deeply appreciated.

Item (17)FEBRUARY 15, 1972.

To: All regional administrators.Subject: Child Service Institutions.

Food and Nutrition Service administers two types of service institution pro.:wins for children. Those participating in either of the two programs must fit theMine definition for child service institutions. A "service institution"s defined in

instruction 70(-1, revision 1 is a public or private nonprofit Program providingnonresidential daycare or other child care for children from areas in which pooreconomic conditions exist or areas in which there are high concentrations ofworking mothers.

1. Special food service program children.SFSPO (Vanik),administered and skoperated under authority of the National School Lunch Act, provides sections 6;.32 and 416 foods through normal school outlets. Thus, a wide variety of meats,vegetables, and fruits are available. Child service institutions participating in thisprogram are also eligible to receive reimbursement based on the number of mealsserved as well as nonfood assistance.

2. "Service institutions" not participating in the SFSPC tnon-Vanik) are eligibleby law to receive the full range of sections 416 and 32 foods. In actual practicethese institutions have been receiving only some of those foods normally distrib-uted to institutions. These foods do not include any fruit, vegetable, or high-qualityprotein foods in the form of meat products.

In order to meet the program objective and because these "child- service insti-tutions" (non-Vanik) are not eligible for reimbursenicut and nonfood assistance,slur policy is to make available all sections 416 and 32 foods to. "child-serviceinstitutions" (non-Vanik). Because of a docket restriction, evaporated milk maynot, at present, be made available.

You are encouraged to maximize the effectiveness of instruction 706-1 by en-couraging State ofliciMs to distribute to these service institutions the same sections32 and 416 foods which are made available to schools operating nonprofitprograms...aril future allocation wires will indicate the availability of these foodsfor child-service institutions.

We realize logistical problems will be encountered in getting the full range offoods to small isolated `ehild-seryiee institutions." We would appreciate receivingyour suggestions on the resolutionof these prbblems.

JUAN DEL CASTILLO,.Director, Food Distribution Division.

Item (18).

TRI-STATE TRIBES, INC.,INDIAN COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECTS,

PROJECT HEADSTAXT,Billing*, Mont., April 13, 197°.

Mn. MARVIN LEVIN,.Food J'rejram Specialist, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service, Washington, D.C.Dian Mn. LAIN: Thank you for sending me the list of States and the food

services they are providing. It looks like Montana has some catching up to do.

51'V

48

I am sending you a copy of the letter I received from the man in charge of theschool food eervioes program, in which ho explains why they can't help us out atthis time.

Forreet Anderson is presentl, Montana's Governor, so I think our next stepwill be to make a trip to Helena. /

Think you for all your valuable assist/Moe in our commodity fight.Sincerely,

SHARRON ANDRESEN,Field Assistant.

' STAMM. OP MONTANA,03710E OF THIS STATSI SIIPICRINTRNDENT

Helena, Mont., April 10/197S.Mrs. SHARON ANDRICIIEN,Tri State Tribes Inc., eadstait, Billings, Mont.-

Dzan MRS. Monis : Enclosed you will find a copy of an opinion rendered byHon. Forrest It Ando , former attorney general of the State of Montana, atthe request of Harriet M ller, former superintendent of public instruction. Theopinion is based on article XI, section 8,. of the State constitution and clearlystated that the superintendent of public instruction cannot deal with agencies,except schools.

Chapter 80 of the Revised Coded of Montana; 1971, provides statutory authorityfor school food services within the office of the superintendent of public; instruction.Section 75-8004 provides authority for the superintendent of public instruction toaccept commodities from the Federal. Government and distribute thpee food com-modities to any public or nonpublic school that contracts for such distribution.Nonpublic schools are included in the sjatuto because the food distributionprogramis financed by the public and private schools receiving the commodities. The keypoint involved in the statute is the restriction to /schools and the implication thatauch schools are thee* accredited by the superintendent of public instruction.

Statptcs, of course,. may be changed by the legislature, but until such time asthe law is changed, we cannot help you th.rough this office.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,

Emenkti SICII.E8,supervisor, &hoof Food Services.-

STATE or MONTANA,OFFICE OP THE ATTOJINIOT GENERAL,

Helena, Mont., October 80,1988.Miss HARRIET Mitten,State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Capito1,71elena, Mont,

DEAR Miss Minratn: In my letter of August 21, 1968, concerning Montana'sparticipation in the special food service program, I indicated that your office couldadminister Federal programs which provided for the feeding of children "* * *through the facilities of educational agencies * * *". You inform me that theFederal Government requires that the program 11.1150 be administered through"5 * * child day-care centers, settlement houses or recreation centers, which pro-vide day care, or other child care where children are maintained inresidence * * *".

%,s I pointed out in my previous letter, section 75-4802, R.C.M. 1947; providesauthorization to accept and direct disbursement of funds appropriated under theNational School Lunch Act" * * * and any amendments thereof * * *". Thissection also provides in part that, * * * the supezintendent.of public instruction .

may also accept and disburse funds provided by any other acts of Congress pro-viding for the feeding of children through the facilities of. cdtreatiesplagencies * * * ".

To the extent that this program is administered through facilities- that are noteducational agencies it is my opinoin that you do not have the authority so ad-minister it. However, it should be noted that the legislature will be meeting withinA short time and should they deem it essential that your office administer such a.program, through noneducational facilities, they can provide you with the requisiteauthority.

Very truly yours,rORRICIST IL ANIMISM:I,

Attorney General.

52

49

Item (19)Auourr 26, 1971.

MIGRANT HEADSTART FROGRAIIII--FUNDING

To: Herbert D. Itorex, Direetor, Child Nutrition Division.Through: Gene P. Dickey, Chief, Program Operations Branch, CND.

Currently the Indian and Migrant Headstart Division (Office of Child Devel-opment), IfEW, is funding four migrant Ileadstart grantees with an ADA(average daily attendance) of 630. Their grantees operate programs lasting 6months or more although not necessarily in the same State for the entire dura-tion. Preseotly, 12 States are involved with their four grantees. OCD anticipatestheir ADA (possibly grantees) will double beginning ally 1. Grantees are applyingapproximately 4 to 6 percent of their budget toward food services. In addition,our regional offices advise that all grantees have or are receiving assistance underthe special food services programs for children (SFSPFC). (Assistance for onoprogram in Texas has not been alma tely confirmed). Nonfood assistance to onegrantee in the amount of $1,200 has von confirmed.

In order to prevent duplication f assistance and facilitate operational pro-cedures, OCD wouWlike to enter into an adniinistrative agreement along thelines indicated into attachment to this memorandum. The States that wouldbe involved (including those under their 'expansion) are Oregon, Washington,Ohio, Wisconsin, Texas, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota, Illinois,Florida Now Jersey, and New York.

I believe it would. be to 'USDA's advantage to attempt to work out an adminis-trative agreement with the Indian and Migrant Readstart Division. An agreementcould probably be worked out which would avoid 80-percent programs (therebyextending our program funds)" would result in maximum extension of our nonfoodassistance funds by coordinating our efforts with those of OCD, and which wouldprovide for maximum interagency coordination. :.

Since all of their current programs are already covered by ono of programs,we would he concerned only with their expansion which does not appear to Involveany major funding problems on our part. During my regional and State visits,both the regions and the States indicated verbally that they would be receptiveto an agreement along the lines indicated in the OCD letter. .

An agreement covering a small program such as this would allow us to gainexperience which could later be applied to larger programs.

MARV/N LENIN, FPS, CND.

To: Regional directors.Subject: Migrant program statistics.

We would appreciate receiving statistical data on programs for migranli childrenwithin your area.

The attached format should be completed for each State within your region.Part eovers programs under the national school lunch program. Part II Coversprograms under the special food service program for children. To properly assemble

' the nece:sary information, it is essential that your State Directors work with theState title I migrant coordinators.

As indicated in the explanatory note attached to the format, for uniformity, weprefer that each State use Juno 15 as the cutoff date for, preparing this format:Adjustmenti for programs that may comb into a program after Juno 15 may bemade againrit question No. 3

In some ewes anti for some States, in order to obtain a proper reflection ofprogram ptitential, it may 1)0 necessary for you to base your figures on last yearsprograms. Although the titld I coordinators may be ,unable to state with certaintyu,w many children in their' programs are receiving assistance.per child -through

the National School Lunch Act, by using their dollar appropriation per child youshould, be able to arrive at a reasOnable estimate. These methods of obtainingprogram status while not the best are, nevertheless, preferable to the completeexcliviion of children participating in our programs.

Item (20)U.S. DurAnTmENT or AGRICULTURE,

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,Washington, D.Q.

53,

b.

50

If :there are any questions en the data requested, please contact us. We wouldlike these reporta.by June 30.

Your coopeartipn and assistance are espeCially appreciated.

*7 Director, Child Nutrition Division,

. EXPLANATORY, NOTES

1. The title I migrant coordinators may be able to supply or )ssist -you inObtaining necessary statistics. Statiatical information sopped for this report neednot be exact but should be reasonably accurate.

2.'Statistical information for..questions 1 and 2 ohould reflect programs thathave been approved 'mitre in operation aecof June 15, 1971.

3. Stati4tical information for question .3 should reflect applications which arepending (assuming there is n reasonable probability of approval); applicationswhich are anticipated, and any, other source of information which would enableyou to supply reasonable figures;

4; The title Imigrant coordinator who is located in the Department of Educa-tion ShoUld be able to confirm the extent that national school lunch programs areinvolved with their programs; Information regarding other Fed'eral agencies willprobably have to come from the program application forms.

5. A fully. coordinated program is one where national school lunch programfunds are being used to provide all of the requested meals and!or snacks. Forpurposoa of this report, the use ef title I migrant funds or other Federal funds toprovide one or more of the requested meals would constlitute partial coordination.

tROGUAMA FOR MIGRANT CITILDRNN

I. National ehool lunch prograin1. Year around programs (approved as of June 15):

A. Breaking, _ C. ADP13. Lunch _ . _ ___ D. ADP

2. Summer-pro-granis (apPrirvediaTOTJune 15):A. Breakfast .. "C ADP- *._. _ 'C.

D. ADP _.-^=-,--B. Lunch ___

3. Anticipated programs (June 10; 1971 through June 15, 1972) (over and above_ _ - - ..._-- --

programs and ADP indicated in 1 and 2 above): :. ,A. Year around:

(a) Breakfast __ _ __ .: fc) ADP ....-.(b) Lunch ___:_. __ _ ,-___ (d) ADP __ _ ,,,,_ 4.____ ._

B. Summer prograirei:(a) Breakfast (c) ADP --.

--.(b) Lunch _ _ s (d) ADP4. Where applicable:

A. Are your year around programs coordinated with title I migrant co-4rdinators' programs? Yes; no; partial

B. Are your summer programs coordinated with-title I migrant coadina:tors' programs? Yes; no; partial

C. Are your. programs coordinated with Federal agencies? Yes; no;partial

II. Special food service program for children1. Year around programs lappnwed as of June 15) I .2. Summer programs (approved as it June 15)3. Anticipated programs (June 15,. 41( 71 through June 15, 1972-,-OVer andirtiuve

programs indicated in land 2 above):A. Yeararound programs _ ADP _I3. Summer programs ADP

4. Where applicable:A. Are your year arrfund programs coordinated with title I migrant co-

ordinators i programs? Yes; no; partialB. Are your summer programs coOrdinated-Witli-title 1 migrant coordi.

nators' programs? Yes),no; partialC. Are yoUr programs coordinated with other Federal agencies? Yes; no;

partial

*1

51

Item (26

DimkarainNt OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WNLFARE,OPVCE OF EDUCATION,

Warhin ton, D.C., June 9,.1971.Mr. EDWARD .LAdministrator, Food and Nutrition. Service,

.S.'DepartWent of Agdoulture,Washington, D.C.

DEAR MIL linxBrAN: Thank you for bringing to our attention the new amend-ments to the Food Stamp Act of 1964. .

There are several definitions in it which will prevent the migrant fargrtvorker/Prom participating in the food stamp program. Specifically they are

Section 3(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as amended, defines "household"as a group of related individuals Srt nonrelated individ als over age 60. Migrants;often travel in multiple households or in family group which may include somenonrelated kdults, (Seldom argindividuaIs over .60 in these groups as migrants

.,,rarely live to that age.) Groups of, single men travel together in many areas,usually paying a small fee for food cooked by the crew leader's wife.

Section 5(b) states that ". . , shall establish uniform national standards ofeligibility for participating , . . and no plan of operation subinitted by a Stateagency shall be approved unless the standards of eligibility meet those establishedby the. Secretary." Migrants by the very fact of their migrancy and the fluidityof their income would be hard-put to fit any defined nationalstandards.

Section 5(c) states ". . . a household shat not be eligible for assistance underthis, act if it includes an, able-bodied adult person between the ages of 18 and 65(exeept mothers or other members of the household who have the responsibilityOf care Of dependent children or of incapacitated adults, bona fide students in anyaccredited school or training program, or persons employed and working at least30 hours per week) who either (a) fails to register for eitaployment at a State orFederal-employment office, or, when impractical, at such other apprwriate Stateakor Federal office designated by the Seeretary . ." The seasonal worker cannot

F , wait around to register for work if it is not available when he arrives. Crops areeither there or not there, and he Must move on, to another area if employment isunavailable.

The migrant farinworker has seldom been able to take advantage of the foodstamp program in the past. Duration of stay, lack of, documentation, food staoffice hours at the time of day he has to, be in the fields; inaccessible dietributfonenters, all have been to his'disadvantage.-Now it appears that he is to be excludedagain. .

There is s mething terribly wrong when nutritional legislation is drawn upwhich woul ,exclude the very segment of our popula n which earns, it anddesperately zleeds it.

Sincerely yours,JOSEPH 13En:roman,

$(For VIDAL A. RIVERA, JR,,Chief, Migrant Programs Branch,Division of Compensatory Education)

Item qp.

MARTIN D. GARBER)Regio I Adininistrator,Southwest Region, FN,5. -

Mt1 reviewing the data yoti recently sent us, we feel justified in recommendingthat your Office approve the Texas Migrant Council for assistance under thespecial food service program for children. The recommendation is based on thefollowing; 1 .

1. We consider the SFSPFC a national program. Although the Texas MigrantCouncil is new to the Southwest, it is' not a new program nationally in that it hasbeen approved for assistance in seven States.,and/Or regional offices (in some placesunder year-around funding). ,

TEXAS MIGRANT COUNCIL,March 21, 1972.

52

2. If seven States and/or regions have approved the council for parti pation, itis difficult for us to explain nonapproval in Texas when the same ilciren andorgaruzation (pregumably need)' is involved.

3. Based on an analysis of data available from Texas on the pending underthe SFSPFC, allocation and audit review branch estimates t at your office Isspending at an annual rate of $607,000. Since your allocation is. $816,000, youappear to have funds adequate to cover the needs of this program. For the periodApril 1 through May 31 (when the centers close) we-estimate the council's re.-rquirement at. approximately $15,600. On a full year's operation (October 1through May 31) we estimate the funding approximately at $61,000. In bothases, based on your current spending, you: should have adequate funds.

Please advise what action you have taken so that we may inform the Indianand Migrant Head Start Division.

Director, Child Nutrition

Item (20EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

OFFICE. or ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,Washington, D.C., January IS, 1972..

Hoh. CLIFFORD M. 'HARDIN,Secretary of Agriculture,Washington, D.C.

DEAR .SECRETARY HARDIN: Staff members of the Office -of Economic Oppor-tunity have recently held discussions with staff members of the Food and Nu-trition Service concerning difficulties faced by migrant and seasonal farmworkersin participating in USDA. food assistance programs.

It was agreed that an analysis of present policies and administrative practicesmight prove helpful in suggesting changes to increase. the availability of foodassistance programs to' migrant and seasonal farmworkers.

Accordingly, the attached docuMent, prepared by the OEO staff, outlines.reasons why migrants and seasonal farmworkers should be declared a special,category of recipients for USDA food programs and suggests alterations whichmight be made in the present rood assistance delivery system to assure that theirspecial needs are met. Annual and national certification for farmworkers arecited as prerequisites to insure the adaptation of food assistance programs toaccommodate the life of this constituency, and it is recommended that certaininterim measures toward this goal be impleinented as soon as p0isible.

I would very much appreciate your consideration of the red ramendationscontained in the attached document, and hope, that they will ntoye helpful, tothe Department of Agriculture in such areas as determining °pending methodsfor enacting new measures contained in the food stamp bill recently approvedby the Congress.

I look forward to continuing cooperation between the bffice' of EconomicOpportunity and the Department of Agriculture.

Sincerely,PRANK CARLUCCI,

Acting DirectOr.

EXPANDED INCLUSION OF ARMWORKERS IN USDA FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

American farmworkers continue to suffer grave injury due to the substandardwages paid them for their labor. The money a farmworker earns in planting andpicking the world's host bountiful crop still does not enable him to share fully inthe harvest. He cannot afford to provide himself and his family with a nutritiousdiet. In addition to low wages, the already paltry incomes of farmworkers arereduced by the mechanization which consumes their-jobs of past seasons. Badweather, damaged crops, and premature recruiting further hamper the farm-worker's attempts to Secure a decent living. When farm work is not consistentlyavailable in sufficient quantity, these families have an immediate need of foraassistance programa.

USDA and OEO share a common responsibility to see that those in need of food, stamps or commodities are provided with them. The ability of fannworkets to

participate in food 'assistance programs freely when in need is basic to the nutri-

53

tonal well-being of those poor citizens. When the system of providing such aidfails to meet the need, it is incumbent. upon 0E0 and USDA to implement changesin the system whereby services are delivered to those for wham they were intended.

intrinrrion OF TARGET POPULATION

These are two, types of farmworkers: Seasonal laborers and migrant laborers, A.seasonal laborer is considered to be a person who worked at a farm within hiscounty of residence of commuted daily across the county or State line to, do farmwage work and returned home each night. A migrant laborer is defined as a personwho left his home temporarily to do farm wage work in another county within thesame State or in a different State with the expectation of eventually.returninghome.' Migrants numbered roughly 10 percent or 275,000 of the 1969 agriculturallabor force.2

THE CAGE FOR CHANGE

The current administration of the food assistance program makes regular partic-ipation difficult 'for, all farmworkers, be they migrant or seasonal. Additionally,the system's failure to adapt itself to the special problems of the migrant laborer,especially those caused by his incessant movement, guarantees that the programshall be of minimum and erratic benefit to him. Certain areas of difficulty may be

tb cited as prithe considerations in determining needed change.A. Inability to Document Income and Expense's. Certification to receive food

°stamps or commodities usually requires evidence that the applicant's incomc doesnot exceed a prescribed amount. Such dociimentation of ear,nings is always difficultto obtain in the case of farmworkers. Farmers and crew leaders rarely give accurateand complete records of wages paid. Also, the records are often complicated byirregular patterns cif advances and deductions, many of which are illegal.

When documentation of income is lacking or ambiguous a migrant will not becertified to receive food assistance. Contacting the grower or crew leader to deter-mine income is unsatisfactory because there is no guarantee their version will re-flect the real situation concerning holdbacks and deductions. The Farm LaborService has no knowledge of individual situations. Further the farmworker has norecords to verify low wages and/or fraudulent deductions because he does4not havethe protection of legislation and law enforcement enjoyed by the rest of society,which require employers to keep and provide records to employees.

The farmworker has unusual business expenses such as traveling long distancesto and from new work locations and the fields. These transportation expeiAeS atesubstantial, but invariably difficult to document. Only rarely are they paid by thegrower or acknowledged by the local welfare office as a hardship declination incomputing an applicant's net income.

B. Seasonal Concentration of Earning Power.Most farniworkers earn amajority of their income during a growing season of several months and mustlive for a year on that income. CertificatiOn for receiving food assistance requiresa monthly review. Frequently, the ,result is that farmworker families are notdeemed eligible for aid during their earning months or are sold stamps at aninflated purchase price. This procedure deprives families of money they will needin later months for food and other necessities.

C. A High Degree of Mobility Among Migratory Laborers.Migrants often workand live in more than half a dozen counties during their workilig months. Thismeans that they must identify the county in which they live, locate the welfareoffice, and learn the hours it is open before they can even begin to learn what helpis available. As he moves, the migrant is faced with a bewildering array of methodsof determining income. During the year, he 'may be affected by as many as fivdor six State plans and the varying interpretations of these plans by differentcounties.

Among the problems arising, from this characteristic mobility are the following,inherent conflicts with the existing delivery system:

1.. Schedules and locations for certifying and selling food stamps which maybe reasonable for residents'of a county often become the vehicles for preventingmigrants from participating in the food stamps program. Migrants cannot schedu}etheir arrival, length of stay, and departure time in a particular county to coincidewith an unknown welfare department schedule. Thus, the limited days and hoursof interviewing and issuing usually means that migrants, cannot obtain stamps

ITlie Hired Farm Working Force of 1069, a statistical report (Economic Research Service, D.E. Depart-me nt of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 180), 30.

2 Ibid. p. 2. .

57

Ibia.,^p. 1.p. 17.

a Ibid., P. 15..a p. 15.

54

5 a' r

,

when they need them. Frequently, the migrant must sactifice hours o work tosecur6 a certification interyle*, Centers are often located far .from mps. If.rtipeated viSits are necessary, as they often are, it becomes too costly. his is aspecial hardship en.agrieultural workers in the East who often travel b creWsbuses and haVe little access to any privatetransportation.

2. Food assistance may be received but once a month, and often it mnit beobtained on a specific day. A migrant worker tnay purchase food stamps in a given.county and immediately thereafter his search for work may taken hirn to COM-moditv county where he will be unable tb redeem his stamps.

3. The welfare department's fair hearing prwdure is an important provisionfor the protection of applicants' rights an.d- is well suited to coimnunity residents.Hearings on entitlement to food assistance must be held within .60 days .of the-filing of the application. Many niigratts will have moved on long before theircase is,.called for a h-earing within the 60-day limit. .

4. Most areas requiring migratory labor utilize-lar0 numbers of migrants foronly peat Gf the vertr. When employment possibilities are not plentiful, many (.,fthe migrants in the. area will need one or the other forin of food assistance. VC*welfare offices aro adequately "staffed to. handle the Seasonal influx of additionolapplicants. Thus,. migrants frequently have to wait considerable-periods of timebefore even being interviewed kr certification.

5. Migrants have great difficulty in obtaining information about food assistanceprograms. Generally, they are not part of the welfare-using coMmunity, and they .often have difficulty communicating in English.' Welfare departments rarely haveprovisions for outreachnr translation.

THE METITOD F011 (MANGE

The need fOr change in administrative policies and procedures governing thereceipt of food assistance by farmworkers is cleat. Annual and national certifica-tion seem to be the prerequisites to insure that these citizens reeeive what isrightfully theirs. Initial efforts to aehiev, this certification must include estab-lishment of a basis for deterniining annual family income and the implementationof interim measures Whereby States will he prepared to make the transitioiv toannual and national certification for farmworkers.Basis for artnuat family inccrme

Approximately 2,600,000 adults plus On undetermined number of children below14 years of age did farmwork for cash wages or salary in 1969. (This total is300,000 fewer, or 11 percent smaller, than the agricultural labor force for 1968;mechanization and the implementation of other laborsaving technology continueto deprive more and more larmworkers nf their liv.elihood.3

Farmworkets continue to receive wages which fall fat short of enabling themto satisfy even their most basic needs and those of their families. The median,daily individual earnings from farmwork in 1069 was $8.50.4 Work in the fieldsduring 1969 provided each farmworker with an average of- $837. The sluinkingdeminitti for farm labor compelled these farmworkers to supplement their incomeswith Vonagricultural employment, thereby increasing thcir average annual in-mine to $1,453.6 In mcst farmwerker families tha wife works the crops ng-sideher husband. The average 1969 income, frGin bith farm and nonfarm sou ofall e(niples who did farmwork in ii.a69.was $2,288.6

It should be noted in examinin. eligibility for participatiGn in food assistanceprOgrams that the earning 1,j&wer of the fainily unit is the vital cot.sideration.Often the family income- is inflEted by the inclusion of moneys earned by children.These (arnings shotild be disregarded in computing the family income (as re-

' quired by the USDA mandatory instruction concerning' the treatment of barnings(I full Gr part-thne students).

When incomes of fa,rmworker households are considered on an annual basis,the vast majority have sufficiently substantlard incomes to qualify them forparticipation in the commodity or food stamp program. But, when eligibility isdetermined on a month-to-month basis, the farmworkers may be excluded duringtheir earning months. The injustice of this method of determination may be ,seenby examining how a farmworker would fare in a State Isith the lowest standardof eligibility. The' South Carolina "State. Plan of operation," whieh. begins todisqualify families from participation at a lower income level than any other

55

State, stipulates that a family of six, the average farmworker housbhold, may earnup to $223 per month or $2,700 annually and still receive food stamps or com-modities. This income ceiling is considerably above the $2,300 that the averagefarmworker and his wife can expect to earn in a year to support themselves.andtheir four children. When a substantial majority of these families qualifies for aidunder the most exclusive standards in the Nation it is clear that, based on theirannual earnings, the overwhelming mass of the farmworker pogulation is legallydeserving of food assistance on a year-round basis.Interim measures

'Initial efforts to implement annual and national certification, whereby the vastmajority of farmworkers will be able to avail themselves of food assistance pro-grams, should include the following:

(a) 'Certification pending verification of eligibility should be a mandatory pro-vision of USDA regulations.

(b) USDA should issue a policy whereby farrnworktr incomes, including justtreatment of hardship deductions, would be determined on a consistent basis.

(c) A shorter period between the certification interview, the decision, and theprovision of aid should be allowed for transients.

(d) All State plans should implement USDA's mandatory instruction to disre-gard full- Or part-time students' income hi determining family income.

(e) Regulations should be issued specifying that States should make provisionfor statewide certification on an annual basis. This would follow the USDA regu-lotion issued April 10, 1969.

(f) Counties containing a large migrant population which request change fromcommodities to Nod stamps should be given priority.

(g) USDA regulations governing commodity distribution programs should bealtered to enable an individual to pass from areas issuing food stamps to thoseissuing commodities with no disruption in program participation.

CONCLUSION

The Office of Economic Opportunity should work With the Department -ofAgriculture toward issuing a new body of regulations and instructions which willeffectively expand the opportunity for farmworker participation in the foodassistance program. Farmworkers should be conisdered a special category ofconstituent and granted annual and national certification.

No State currently certifies farmworkers on an annual basis and no mechanism-exists for the national certification of individuals to receive food assistance pro-gram's. Further, there are no guidelines established for the interchangeability offood stamp and commodity certification across county and State lines.

Certification on an annual basis would protect the farmworker from beingvictimized by the extensive seasonal fluctuations in his earning power; annualincome should determine his rightful share of food assistance, regardless of thepattern in which it was earned. By annualizing any State's maximum monthlyincome for eligibility the average farmworker would qualify for aid throughoutthe year. Yearly certification valid anywhere "along the stream" would insureparticipation by migratory laborers in food assistance programs. No longerpenalized during the season,,,when most of his income is earned, and freed fromcertification delay at each new stop, the migrant would be able to receive foodstamps or commodities on a nearly regular basis.

Annual certification could he accomplished by granting certification withoutfull written documentation in each individual ease; all applOants could be extendedpresumptive eligibility with a sampling subsequently investigated more ex-tensively. Until national eligibility standards are established, the median eligibilitycriteria for all States might he utilized as the 'basis for eligibility standards.Individuals with annual incomes below this- level would be pertified, preferablyin the home base to participate in the place where they are currently Jiving andissued identification enabling them to purchase stamps or obtain commoditieswherever their work might take them. The purchase price ,for stamps could be-determined on the basis of average monthly earnings for one year or be weighedto Cost more during the months of greater earnings, and less during months ofreduced earnings.

While this plan may increase the cost of certifying farm workers in their homebase areas it will certainly save money for the °stream" counties and- States. Inaddition, the cost of repeated certifications will be eliminated. USDA has sufficientflyxibility with its section 32 funds to absorb any extra. costs which this planwould induce in home base areas.

59t

56

Interim measures as previously noted should be implemented as soon as possible.In no way, however, are these measures a substitute for annual and nationaLcertification. Such certification is the only means of assuring participation by all .

eligible farmworkers in USDA food assistance programs.

Item (24)

kr, FRANS CARLUCCI,Acting Director; Office of. Economic Opportunity,Washington, D.C.

v-DEA.R Mn. CARLUCCI: t hank you for youaletter of January418, 1971., regarding

. the participation of migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the. USDA food assist--ance programs.

I have reviewed the proposals contained in the attachment to your letter andappreciate the time and effort you and your staff put into its preparation. We haveAA you know, been concerned on the impact of our programs among migrant andseasonal farmworkers.

We hope that you will be in a position in the.near future to supply as with thedata gathered by your staff members and grantees on results from your experiencesin working with tie migrants. We think that It is extremely important to pinpointboth the policies and mechanics that cause eligible persons to be excluded from thebenefits of our program. It has been our experience that averages in dealing withthe incomes of the' poor obscure as much as they reveal.

Since all of the suggestions contained in your 'paper are based on data derivedfrom the Hired Farm Working Force of 1969, a Statistical Report (ERS, USDA,Agriculture Economic Report-No. 180), have again carefully reviewed the datacontained in that report. While your staff assumes that the average of all Workersis the significant characteristic In determining average food ne , it seems essentialto us that the individual components within that popula n be examined. Forexample, 1.5 million of the 2.5 million persows were no wally in the labor forceand appear to be numbers 'of households of other wage earners, according to thereport. The yearly income for those who were in the labor force and appear to behead of households ranged from $2,829 to $3,989 average income per worker,

. depending on the category. Clearly, from the averages, many are in need 'of foodassistance. Others must have incomes substantially above any reasonable exclusionscale for the averages to reach these levels.

We would be most interested in your comments on the group-by-group averagesas they relate to the data you have secured on income streams of migrants yourprograms have reached in the past years. We would also be interested in how yoursuggestions, including the averaging of yearly income, would actually affect indi-vidual households with which you have had extended contact and income data.Would it be more advantageous for them to pay a relatively high purchase require-thent throughout the yea&than to be ineligible in months of peak earning andreceive assistance at the minimum purchase level when they are unemployed?

We look forward to continuing our discussions with you and your staff members.. Sincerely,

. HOWARD P. DAvis,o ,cling Administrator.

FEBRUARY 12, 1971.

Item (25)

U.S. DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE,FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.To: Regional administrators.Subject: Migrant programs.

In order to obtain statistical information on. USDA assistance to migrants,we would appreciate your duplicating and having each State director completethe attached form. Regional offices may either indicate their figures above theState figures or may complete a separate form.

In order to obtain complete data, the State director (and regional office whereapplicable) should consult with the title I migrant coordinator and any otherofficial (0E0, Labor, etc.) operating programs for migrants.

60

, 57

We would appreciate a reply by September 20, or earlier, if you have obtainedthe data.

Attachment.Director, Child Nutrition Division.

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE FOR MIGRANTS

STATE

Jan. 1,1971 June 1,1971 Sept. 1, 1971 Total 'Nati-to to to mated actual

May 31,1971 Aug. 31, 1971 Dec.31, 1971 plus anticipated

(1 (2) (3) (1+2+3)

1, Estimated number at programs assisting migrant-children

2. Estimated number of migrant children assisted

1. Combine school lunch, breakfast, special milk, special food service, eta. Con-sider each participating school and/or institution as a separate program if theschool and/or institution has categorized migrants or has a significant number ofmigrant children participating (25 percent or more).

2. Periods June 1, 1971, to August 31, 1971 and September 1, 1971, to Decem-ber 31, 1971 should reflect only additions. Count programs and participants intime period in which program was approved. Programs overlapping into anothertime period, should be counted 'only in the earlier time period.

Item (26)Re letter to Mm. Young. -

(1) Unless carefully reworded, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 could leave impressionthat we have no priorities this year. We are particularly interested in developinga food service in no-program schools in low Income areas, whether it is lunch, orbreakfast, or both. (Note last sentence paragraph 6.) Certain pSiVate schools inother areas, for example, would have a very low priority. And I don't knowwhere funds will come from If we keep pushing breakfasts except for real needyschools.

(2) We are appreciative of the efforts of these churchwomen, and we don'tknow of any criticism from Department officials, Washington or field. Somecriticism has come, I understand, from local officials who have not appreciatedthe approach made by Some of the women. Their approach, of course, shouldbe in expressing interest and concern and not with attitude bf need for checkingto see that a job is done.

Item (27)

Re status of special food service program for children.HOWARD P. Dims,Deputy Administrator.

We -have just completed a roundup of funds for each State concerning thespecial food service program for children and supportive materials are attached.

According to the States' request approximately $14,518,811, is required .tocomplete the liked year.1971 operation. This includes their estimate for summeroperations which will commence in June, As you know, we have $12 million inthe fiscal year 1971 budget arid the Budget and Finance Division indicates thereis $1.3 million of fiscal year 1970 funds which can be used in the reapportionmentof fiscal year 1971 funcis, Therefore, we have funds available in the amount of$13.3 million for fiscal year '1971 operations and State agencies have requested$14,518,811.

It is recommended that we reapportion the fiscal year 1970 and 1971 funds($13.3 million); if we are to respond to the additional $1.2 million request of theState agencies, it will be necessary to use motion 32 funds available as a resultof transfer between the various fun-As this, year. If fiscal year 1971 section 32 fundscannot be used for this purpose, it will be necessary to prorate the funds available.

Jurit 1, 1971.

6

58

This approach will have a serious impact on summer programs in that manycommence in Rip and, =low bloc grants are made available, they will not be

.able to start.Based on our analysis of obligations And knowledge .of program operations .we

anticipate that approXimtely$2 million of fiscal year 1971 funds currently beingrequested by State agencies will not be utilized. However, if we are not able torespond to their requests, summer programs will he affected directly because of theConservative nature of State agencies in not initiating programs until they areassured funds 'are "in band."

Further, State agencies indicate that $17.6 million is required- for the fiscalpar 1972 summer programs and that approximtely $16 million is nceessary tomaintain -the year-round programs at their ,present level, At this time, Stateagencies have $4.6 million in firm obligations for summer programs. However,this does not include big city operations since -negotiations have not been con-cluded at this time.

Information received from State agencies, in addition to the above-mentionedfunds request, indicates that the planning of summer programs 'is widespreadAnd that the number and size of programs. are far greater than anticipated whenthe budget was proposed. In addition to the inadequacy of funds- in the budget,it is important to realize the impossibility of operating summer programs of thismagnitude under the present apportionment formula. In summary, because ofsummer strife and metropolitan problems, the special food service program forchildren has become an important dimension of summer programs throtighoutthe Nation-and.under our current apportionment formula and budget restrictions,section 32 bloc grants are necessary if we respond to this need. Because of theimportant role and social impact this program has on endeavors of this nature,considerable reaction will be forthcoming in the event funds-are not available. Inaddition, we anticipate a groundswell of public opinion that could very well affectthe reaction to the supplemental appropriation bill now in.the Senate.

BIG CITY PROGRAMS

City ChildrenLength of

time (weeks) Cost

Atlanta.Baltimore.

25, COO(I)

1210

$1,000,0001,000,000Birmingham 10,000 12 300, COO

Chicago 50,000 12 1,100.000Dallas 10,000 10 100, 000Detroit 26,000 10 635,000District of Columbia 50,000 10 1, 200,C00Fort Worth. 10,000 10 100,000Los Angeles 100,000 10 5,000,000Memphis 25,000 12 300, 000San Antonio 20,000 10 200,000

Not known.

It is our proposal, in order to finance such a summer program, to utilize section32 block grants and, in the absence of such approval, it is recommended that thefollowing action be taken:

1. Advise State agencies that we intend to reapportion fiscal year 1971 fundsand fiscal year 1970 carryover funds immediately. If section .32 funds are notavailable for fiscal year 1971 operations, the reapportionment of 1971 and fiscalYear 1970 carryover funds will be prorated to the States accordingly. States willbe advised to plan programs within the funds-available'.

2. Advise State agencies that additional funding, above those funds availablein the' fiscal year 1972 budget request, will not be forthcoming, and that theyshould structure their programs in line.with'these resources.

If this approach is taken, it is recommended that resources' priority be given toyear-round programs.

62'

IIEttenwr D. RentEx,,Director, Child Nutrition Division.

59

Item (28)

STATEMENT OF ZION. RICHARD E. LYNG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,Jusr. 8, 1071, BEFORE SENATE. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

* * * We are happy to be able to renort that we have been able to meetdemonstrated needs for additional funds this year * * *.

Senator Cnuals. Well, if you have ample money for the amount requested by .the President's budget, but are you saying that is an ample amount to take careof all the needs?

Mr. LYNG. I am not saying it is an ample amount totake care of all the requestsof all the States. .

0

Senator Cufluis. You are just saying in your testimony that the authorizationyou are requesting here will produce suffiOent, have sufficientfunds to take care of the admmistratioes bidgdtireqiir

Mr. LYNG. That is correct. .0."Senator Ciutals. Wells the coil' eern then, ifs, h the administra-

tion's budget request is sufficient to.takercare,oft teg s.

7*, . « *

68;;

APPENDIX II

PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOOD ASSISTANCE TOR MIGRANT CHILDREN

(Prepared by the dtaff of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs)

I. AUTHORITY: NATIONAL SCHOOL WNW ACT OE NO, AS AMENDED

General ProvisionsMigrant children receive no special attention or designation for participation in

school lunch programs, although they are specially needy. Many migrant families ifor example, are reluctant to fill out the forms for free school lunches, some schoolpersonnel are reluctant to involve this shifting population in the programs.Section 18 of the act

Section 13 provides for the authority to feed children in nonprofit, xionresiden-. tial, nonschool settings. It is the mingle largest source of funds available for feedingmigrant children. In fiscal year 1972 a freeze was imposed on all programs receiv-ing section 13 money. Because that funding source is new since 1908, programs aresmall in number. During the past year most requests for new programs have ,lagendenied; and program expansion requests are denied. Migrant programs in pages-ular tend to be denied because their population is always changing.

This year (fiscal year 1973) the administration is requesting the same level offunding as last year. Therefore, needs forigrant feedinf will remain unmet andeven be more acute duo to rising food costs..

Need.There are at I6ast 290,000 school-age migralit children, and another ap-proximately 200,000 pre-school migrant children. Fewer than half participate infood assistance programs under the most generous estimate available.

II. AUTHORITY: TITLE I MIGRANT FUNDS. IN THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYEDUCATION ACT or 1466

S

Migrant children are designated b3)r-IIEW (and every other federarageney ex -'except USDA) as specially needy. Under title cI they may be assisted by regulartitle I funds and special title ?migrant funds because their needs are so great.

Title I migrant funds are intended for all services required by migrant children,but are generally intended for educational purposes. Because the USDA. programsfor food service (especially section 13, above) are underfunded. scarce title Imoneys intended for educational, medical, and' other purposes are used for fixed.

Nccd.Of the $45 million available for all title I services an unknown portion(which may be as high as 20 to 30 percent) is regularly spent for food.

III. AUTHORITY: INDIAN AND MIGRANT 11EADSTART PROGRAMS

Migrant children should receive nutritious meals in Headstart. As with title IESEA funds, there is no amount of Headstart moneys designated for food, and yetfood must be paid for out of these educational funds because the funds are notbeing made available under section 13 in amounts adequate to meet current needs.

Necd.--$3 to $4 million is currently spent for food out of lIeatIstart funds inprograms kiir Indians and migrants. In these programs at least an additional $1 to$2 million is required to provide for increased food and service e ts, and to providebreakfasts where they arc not now available.

(61)

4e)

80-'201 0--72---.4

4

. IV. IN SUM

The most logical source for feeding migrant children is the National SchoolLunch Act. School-age migrant children should and could receive freelunches ex-cept that the USDA. has refused to grant them categorical eligibility, and thechildren are thus excluded from the programs fol. procedural reasons.

Preschbol migrant children, and children who are out of school during the sum-mer, should be provided for under section .13 of this act. (It should also apply to

'grant children in the stream who are only in school for 2 months-'-April, 11lay,or eptember, Octoberand who are no covered now.)

T principal obstacle to coverage under section 13 is the freeze imposed in thatprogram, and the refusal of the USDA to request additional funds. Migrant pro-grams are unevenly or not at all covered now; with the same amount of moneygoing less far, they will be worse off in the coming year. In particular, $7.8 million isneeded in the summer of 1972 to fund summer feeding programs for migrantchildren.

ISSUES FOR HEARING ON FEEDING PROGRA

I. FUNDS

FOR MIGRANT CHILDREN

The funding authority pri arily involved i section 13 of the National SchoolLunch Act. That funding so e has been ap opriated $49 million for fiscal year1972. Only about $35.8 million is being expo ded because the administration hasimposed an absolute freeze.

A. Migrant programs are being "frozen ou ": new programs cannot get funding,existing programs are being denied expanse n. Yet there is money in section 13that could be used right now

B. In Public Law 92-32 Congress authorized the Department of Agriculture touse up to $135 million in money out of section 32 (Customs Duties slush fund)to meet needs in the child nutrition programs under the school lunch act. Thatmoney has not been used, and is available (there is a carryover provision intofiscal year 1973).

II. NEED

Migrant children are specially needy. They are entitled to both regular title Iand title I migrant funds, and they are identified as a special group by every'otherFederal department and agency. Only the Department of Agriculture fails torecognize their special needs.

Because migrants are also particularly unable to meet normal certificationrequirements (they have poor or no pay records) they are doubly jeopardized bythis failure. The Department of Agriculture has made\ no effort to alleviate theproblem through group certification.

Other programs intended to aid migrants would do far better if at least thechildren were assured of adequate food. Until then the special education moneymakes no sense, or conversely, is used up for food, when it should be spent oneducation.

III. PERVERSION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

Congress intends that title I education money be spent for education, and thatchild nutrition money be used to feed the children. Congress has assumed (becausethe USDA has told them) that the feeding needs of the childern are being ade-quately met. USDA has requested no increase in funds under section 13. USDAadmits to no large unmet need. Yet across the country, financially strapped pro-grams for desperately poor migrant children are having to "borrow" equipment,medical, and education funds just to feed the children.

The will of Congress is being tiOverted, the children are being shortchanged,and program funds intended for the purpose of education are not being appropri-ately used.

IV. THE RECORD OF THE USDA WITH RESPECT TO MIGRANT CHILDREN

The simple' issue is that USDA hasinot requested funds that it knows arerequired to meet a need that is amply documented in its oWn filesa need thatremains unmet in large part through bureaucratic ineptitude, mismanagement,and general confusion.

65

.03

Svuuaa LUNCH PROGRAMFUNDING .

Authority: Section 13 of the National School Lunch Act; enacted 1968.Program: Fourth year of bperation.

Funding each year (summer plus year-round together)

ffn minions]Fiscal year 1969Fiscal year 1970Fiscal year 1971Fiscal year 1972

liscal year 1973 (requested)

4

$3. 27. 3

20.949.049.0

The Department of Agriculture claims that fiscal year 1972 expenditures undersection 13 were as follows:

Fiscal year .1971 funds (for programs starting in June) (estimated obliga- ;till"ns)

19.02. 1

Fistcaiol year 1972 funds (July and August) (claims made) --0.

Total 21. 1(A) Estimated total spending on year-round programs: $17.1 to $17.4 million

(spending rate-lc f $1.2 million per month).(B) Cumulative obligations through February 29, 1972, summer and year

round: $29.5 million,Therefore, of $49 million made available by Congress for fiscal year 1972, U.S.

Department of Agriculture claims to have committed only a 'maximum of $38.5(actually $36), on leaving a carryover of at least $10.5 millionwhich theydon't admit to.

Two points: The year-round (day care) programs have been frozen all thisfiscal year. If they have a substantial excess, why have they refused all requestsfor day-care funding?

If they have a $10.5 million surplus, why aro they unable to spend more onthe summer feeding programs?

They will possibly count in a $6 million figure to. be used in June of 1972 (whichis still fiscal year 1972).

By claiming only those obligations which they have thus far met in the summerprogram, the $19 million "claims made" figure, they can claim to be providing25-percent increase when they come up with a total of $25.5 'million for thissummer.

In fact, their computer broke down in August. They have no accurate figures onparticihaventio, on claims for reimbursement, or on total program coats. Someclaims not yet been, paid, other have been overpaid. Detroit, for example,is shown to have fewer than 1,000 children per day participating in *to peakmonth of August 1971, though they served approximately 25,000 meals per day.That Is when the computer broke. Milwaukee overpaid by about $10,000until the mistake was discovered by hand.Section 31 funding

Last year USDA used $11,225,000 out of section 32 funds (one-third of allimport duties) to support the program. This year they expect to use $28,225,000mjt of that same source.v(1) Last year Congress authorized USDA to use up to $135 million out of

section 32 funds to alleviate the summer crisis and meet other shortfalls In thechild nutrition programs. USDA used none of that $135 million on summer lunchbut Instead transferred other section 32 funds. That money 13'50 available andcould be committed immediately to begin the programs with full funding support.

(2) Because of the import duty imposed under phase II, there will be approxi-mately $200 million In additional funds in section 32 during fiscal year 1973(actually that money is available on a calendar year basis and is theoreticallyavailable now). Given that increase, USDA could be requesting an increase infunding under section 13.

(3) They will say that they used the $135 million (point 1) to meet the tongres-sional request in N'ovember to continue high levels of support for the regularschool lunch program. Ifowevor, at that time Congress made the necessary

66

04

money available and assumed that 'USDA would request Wirt the second supple-mental and thereby "pay back" the section 32 fond. As is evident from Congrese-man Perkins' letter, Congress did not intend their November action to supersedethe early sietkui, providing the $135 million.

SECTION 32 FUNDS

Fecal yew-1371 1072 1113

Cusco' rompli.... . ..

Tot* ava1881, . .

.8 $116.1300.0

1*51.1133.8

1,021.1 1,0118.1 1,012.1

Clearly, there is an increase in Customs receipts going to make up the section 32fund. Given the current (and apparently growing) trade deficit, customs receiptsshould be even higher next year.

Question. Given the real ancl anticipated increases in 1 eys ailable, has theDepartment made any requests of its congressional c t make additionalfunds available to the cities for the summer programs out o these moneys?

If not, why not?

CENTZR ON SOCIAL WY.LYAND POLICY AND LAW,. New York, N.Y., May S, 1971.*

Ito USDA and food stamp program provisions relating to migrant and seasonalfarmworkers.

Mr. BOREN CRERTKOV, Esq.,Chief Counsel, Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Senate Annex, Washington,

D.C.DEAR Ma. CRED,TICOY: I am writing this letter to inform you of two very basic

problems with 'USDA's administration of the food staff* program with regardto migrant and seasonal farmworkers. I have gathered the information containedon the practices and policies through my experience as an investigator for FloridaRural Legal Services and through continued contact with the attorneys there.The performance of USDA with regard to the enforcement of the "outreach"provisions of the Food Stamp Act added by amendment in 1971 and with regardto the approval of certain regulations on the estimation of income for determiningeligibility for the food stamp program has had the net effect of depriving manymigrant_ and seasonal farmworkers of substantial benefits under the program.

The "outreach" provisions of the Food Stamp Act (at section 10(e)(5) of theact) set forth requirements for State agencies administering the program. Theserequirements are that State agencies shall takb effective action, including utiliza-tion of services provided by.other federally funded agencies and organisations,to inform low-income households of the availability and benefite of the program,and insure the particiption of eligible households. The regulations promulgatedpursuant to .these statutory provisions make very clear that State agencies as acondition for the funding and operation of the food stamp program must have aplan for outreacha plan fee-utilising other federally funded agencies and a planfor information distributed to low-income households about the program and aplan to insure the participation of eligible households. (See 7 C.F.R. 271.8(e) (4)at 30 Fed. Reg. 14110, 7 C.F.R. 271.1(s) (iii) at 30 Fed. Reg. 141b8.) The Stateagencies were due to have State plan provisions submitted to USDA by January29, 1972. As of that date, according to information received from the SenateSelect Committee on Nutrition and Duman Needs, no State agency had submitteda plan for outreach to USDAFNS.

The operative effect of the State agencies' failure' to submit outreach plans toUSDAENS and the effect of USDA's failing to terminate those agencies which

failed to submit such plans are very clear for migrant and Alumna' farmworkers.If the State agencies in the home base winter States had complied with the out-reach provisions of the act and of the regulations, then migrant and Seminalarmworkers would be info'smed that they could take benefits under the program

67

05

O

across State lines as the summer harvest work develops and as the migrant andseasonal work force moves into the Nocthelk, Western and Eastern States, (See

C.F.R. 1 271.4(a) (6) at 30 Fed. Reg. 14109). There has been little effort by theState agencies and by USDA-FNS to inform., migrant and seasonal farmworkers ,about this particular benefit. The agencies hate of necessarily refused to enforcethe provisions; however, dissemination of:know dge of the benefits of the pro-gram to low-income households is a responsibility speciitally delegated to theStite agencies and to USDA NS by their responsibility to oversee the operationsof State agencies and to initi e action to terminate the operations of a food stampprogram .where State agencie., fuse or fail to comply with conditions of Stateplans of operation.

The history of social welfare programs with regard to migrant and seasonalfarmworkers is asordid one. Exemptions or strictly, described coverage character-izo the benefits that migrant and seasonal farmworkers can get under many ofthe programs. Additionally, many jurisdictions have imposed additiontal barriersto eligibility that focused on-the particular fact of migrant life = mobility 'acrossState lines. To have one of the first truly federalized benefits (food stamp eligibil-itythat can be taken across State lines) unenforced by State and Federal agenciescharged by law with the responsibility to administer these provisions highlightsthe essential powerlessness of this particular group of working people.

The second provision harmful to migrant and seasonal farmworkers ithrchUSDA has, by its acts of commission, helped to implement is the provision on thedetermination of income from farm operations. . The Federal regulations pro-mulgated last July provide that State agencies may 'allow otherwise eligiblehouseholds which derive their income from farm operations or farm employmentto be certified for eligibility for up to 12 months (see 7 C.F.R. 1271.4(a) (4) WO (d)at 30 Fed. Reg. 14109); however, other provisions of thd regulations allowState agencies to handle income of households which derive their income fromfarm operations or self-employment by either averaging evenly such income orby prorating the income unevenly over the certification period not to exceed 1year. What this means is that State agencies have the ability to declare eligiblehouseholds of migrant, mid seasonal farmworkers for up to 1 year, but, morecritically, they also have the power to antieipate and forecast the income receivedby those households. In the food*tamp program the level of income attributedto an otherwise eligible houehold is what determines the amount that the house-hold will pay for the stamps; the greater the income generally the more the house-hold will pay for the specified monthly -allotment of stamps. State agencieshave been promulgating State regulations with the apparent approval of USDAthat allow State agencies to forecast income for members of households whichderive their income from farm operations or farm employment on ". . an 'as nulled or itinerant basis." If the State agency, under grower or (Alin pressure,wished to make a migrant household ineligible it could easily attribute antici-pated income to a household where, in fact, none existed or none could exist.Vor example, a migrant household could be made eligible for stamps in a

dueState and could be receiving stamps at relatively low purchase level due to thefuoethat harvest operations had not yet begun in an area; as the harvest opera-tions begin, the State agency could, under the above provisions, determine thatthe household was making more money than it actually was in fact making.Jacking up the price of stamps in this fashion is a convenient grower tactic thathas been used in the past to get farmworkers to stop buying stamps and to getinto the fields at starvation wages (see N.A.A.C.P. v. ilodgson, administrativecomplaint filed with Secretary of Labor on April 22, 1971, concerning RuralManpower Service, exhibits No. 900-905.1 Migrant and seasonal farmworkershave little opportunity to rebut the presumption of such income anticipated fromsuch farm operations; in many instances, provisions of applicable State andFederal laws that would provide the farmworkers with adequate wage statementsto tell the State agency just how much money is being ma*, by the householdare unenforced.

The advent of the peak summer harvest season mandates that further oversightand inquiry be exercised on ITSDA-FNS and its ability supervise State agencypractices so that the abuses of the immediate and, historical past will not bereplayed and so that those who work the land will not starve while doihg so.

Sincerely,Tom Faun,

Law Clerk.

68

7 fl'rom the Waehhagte j Post, May 1, 19721.UNITED STATES SEEN BUNOI;ING' 00i ID FOR IVIIGRAVITSAFT,ER MANY

- . PRO P.),. G If :Plummy. ,

.(By Austin &Ott, asliingon Post Staff Writer). 1.40,., \. ,

A food program spe4talist Who quithe Agriculture DeRartment as a "matter ofconscience" charges that, largelY- through internal bungling, the Department has

Marvin Levin, scheduled to fly t hunger-plagued Banglhdesh Tuesday to set

made well-intentioned child nutri ion programs !.'especially . deterimental -:tomigrant children, and probably . . , to most 'other needy children."

up food programs for CARE, is to testify before a joint sessithOoday of the specialSenate committees on migrant workers and on nutrition and human needs. Inprepared testimoiay, he draws a picture of hungry migrant children waiting invain for help whiCh the Department should give, and could if it' weren't constantlystumbling over its own philosophy and procedures. .

Its -failure to do' what existing legislation and appropriations already allow,Levin said, has forced other Government agencies to fill the gap, spending moneyon food that was supposed to educate or train poor families. 'He estimated that $5.3 million to $7 million was diverted to food froth itsintended purposes in 1971.

-

The result, he said, has been detrimental to migrant' worker programs run byother agencies, primarily Health, Education, and Welfare, the Office of EconomicOpportunity, and the Department of Labor.

Some of Levin's charges have been supported in the .past.few weeks by outsidegroup4 that reported on special summer feeding and school breakfast programs.Levin worked for USDA. from February 1971 until last Friday, after spencling5 years- in India with CARE, administering state child nutrition programs.

_.,_ "The most obvious indi tion that the Food and Nutrition Service is not meet- .Ing the food needs of migran dren is that other U.S. agencies, concerned withnonfoOd aspects of the migra hild, are diverting large portions of thellrtudgets. . . into the food progra e said. . !g;

-

. LEAD -ON TECHNIQUE

He estimated that 8 to 20 percent of such budgets wind up being used for fiod,primarily because USDA lures program administrators right up to the lastmoment into thinking they .will get the money they need,

"You lead them and you give them every indication, but you don't quite makethat final commitment," Levin:said.,.He told of a series of meetings on migrant programs run primarily by HEW

last sumnief, at *hch USDA's Food and Nutrition Service told State 'and Federal,agencies "Don't spend your own money (for food), put your money into education.. . . We have plenty of money to pick up your needs,"

"But we didn't have that money," Levin said in an interview, adding that hewas one of the officials making such promises. -

"We did not know the money wasn't there," he, said: "We honestly thought at "the time that the problem was nonparticipation, that they weren' applying (forfood money). At no time were we ever corrected."

One complicating factor is, that sometimes the Money is there even when' USDA thinks it isn't/kLevin said.

Last October, is testimony said, the Texas Migrant Council headquarted in'Laredo, applied to USDA's Texas regional office for money to fund a program. ,

"Although the regional office determined that the council' was eligible, and ,,.'needed, assistance, itvlid not approve participation b'ecause they thought they

had commit'ted thpir $816,000 appropriation," he said.Not until 54mtinths later, late last March, did USDA notify the regional offic '

that the office tact only committed $607,000 and therefore did have,the money,. he said. .5

,"Thus for 5 months we withheld approval for te necessary program, beCause we

did not know how much money we were spending." Abouti650 migrant childrenwere affected, he said.'INSENSITIVITY" ' SEEN

Levin said he could give dozens more examples. He blamed such problems on the,,Department's "insensitivity to the special problems of migrant children," itsinadequate data, internal problems and attempts to serve the administration9.ther than the hungry. .

69

But, he said, they produce "extremely adverse effects," such asIn California, 22,000 Migrant children paid 30 cents for lunches in 1971 instead

of getting them free because their parents had not gone through USDA's requiredprocedure of signMg income statements, a procedure Levin called "not feasible"for migrant work&s.

In New York, 5,00 migrant children were fed by diverting title I funds intendedfor their education.

In Florida, about $160,000 last Year, and aneestiinated $260,000 this year willbe diverted from title I educational funds to pay for food that the Food andNutrition Service should be paying for.

"The Food and Nutrition Service has been repeatedly advised that the parentsof migrant children; in most. cases, are functionally illiterate," Levin's testimonysaid, "that the parents do not know what'their yearly income is. . .

"Therefore the Department should authorize categorical (automatic) certifica-tion for migrant children."

"Migrancy is ant occupational grouping with known income levels," he com-mented, but "the response from FNS has been sile,nce."

By not recognizing migrants .as a special group, he said "the Department hasplaced ,an extremely.heavy administrative burden on migrant sponsors. Last yearone local sponsor applied to 11 State and/or regional offices. ".

The Department also frustrates attempts to learn More about its programs,Levin said:

"In August 1971, I attempted to formally gather data on the number of migrantchildren participating in state programs . . . the information would have allowedus to plan a program based on probable needs.

"The letter requesting the data never left the Departnient because, as the noteattached to the letter indicated,. 'the time is not right.' "

The note was signed by Herbert Rorex,. Chief of -the Division of Child Nutri-tion Levin said.

His testimony offered several recommendations for USDA, including categoriz-ing migrants "oas a special target group," automatically certifiying migrant children

' eligible for free school. lunches, and submitting to Congress "a plan of operationspecifying where it is, where it is going, how it plans to get there. . . ."

So far, Levin said, repeated criticism from inside and outside the Departmenton its food programs has resulted only in patchwork, temporary fixes that don'tprevent the problem from recurring.

What is needed, he said, is a basic-change in the systems within the Department.

[From the Tampa, Fla., Times, June 9,.1972j

FOOD STAMP SNAFU HAMPERS MIGRANTS

(By Ann, Cravens, Times Staff Writer) ,

Rusxm.The dinner bell was a hollow ring for many migrant families whohave discoVered, too late, that there are no instant food' coupons -in Hillsborough'County. s.

The Jesus Ledesma family is typical of th thousands of families that arrivedhere in May for the peak of the tomato harvbst.

The family of four wage earners and 11 dependents followed the crops up fromsouth Florida and they, like many others, had little money and no food stampswhen'they arrived here.

When they applied for the coupons, part of a federally funded program thatallows the poor to buy food at a discount, they were told that they qualified forthe program but that they had to wait 3 or 4 weeks, said Margarita Mata, JesusLedesma 's married sister.

Ledesma said his father, Fralisfrhemisses a lot of work.

Ledesma, didn't watt to go back becausethey always say come tomorrow

Anyway, they'll be moving on to Alabama in a few days.TheGLedesma family's .story is echoed by many other migrant families. They

say they'll be gone by the time the food stamp office has time for them. -They can't work when they are ,traveling and they can't work unless they

travel, so they say they'll arrive in the.next town short on money, short on foodand still not signed, up for fqod stamps.

Operators- of the food stamp office, located at 912 Tampa Street, do not denythe situation exists.

7.0

as

The problem is understaffing, said Mrs. Evelyn Jones, a former serial workeraqd food stamp coordinator for Hillsborough and Polk counties. And right nowit doesn't look like they'll be getting any more personnel.

A random check of a migrant camp on the Council Farms brought out theseaccounts of delay and frustration:MrS, 'Matilde Espinoza has missed 1 day of work already to make the 50-mile

trip to Tampa to apply for food stamps. She was given an appointment on June 14but by then she says, she and her husband and their 15 children will have movednorth following the harvest.

In Homestead, where the family spent the winter they were on the food stampprogram. But the office there apparently did not tell them that they could transfertheir application when they moved if they would make arrangements fieforeItheyleft.

The family of Preciliano Galan applied for the program around May 24 or 25and was told to come'briek June 6. If they can afford to miss anther day of workthey will go back.The Tampa food stamp office is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mrs: Jones has

considered opening an office in the Ruskin area during the day but said there isno chance it will get started within the next month.And by then the migrants will be gone.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, May 1, 19721

MIGRANT FOOD PROGRAMS LIrr

(By Austin Scott, Washington Post staff writer)A food program specialist who quit the Agriculture Dtktrtment as a "matter of

conscience" charges that largely through internal bungling, the Department hasmade well-intentioned child nutrition prograffis "especially detrimentalto migrantchildren1 and probably , . . to most other needy children.'

Marvin Levin, scheduled to fly to hunger-plagued Bangladesh Tuesday to setup food programs for CARE, is to testify before a joint session today of the specialSenate Committees on Migrant Workers and on Nutrition and Human Needs. Inprepared testimony, he draws a picture of hungry migrant children waiting invain for help which the Department should give, and could if it weren'tconstantlystumbling over its own philosophy and proceedures.

Its failure to do what existing legislation and appropriations already allow,Levin said, has forced, other Government agencies to fill the gap, spending moneyon food that was supposed to educate or train poor families.

He estimated that $5.3 million to $7 million was diverted to food from itsintended purposes iii 1971.

The result, he said, has been detrimental to migrant worker programs - run byother agencies, primarily Health, Education, and Welfare, the Office of EconomicOpportunity, and the Department of Labor.

Some of Levin's charges have been supported in the past few weeks by outsidegroups that reported on special summer feeding and school breakfast programs.

Levin worked for USDA from February 1971, until last Friday, after spending5 years in India with CARE, administering state child nutrition programs,

"The most obvious indication that the Food andaikutrition Service is not meet-ing the food needs of migrant children is that other U.S. agencies, concerned withnonfood aspects of the migrant child, are diverting large portions of their bud-gets ... into the food program," he said.

LEAD-ON TECHNIQUE

He estimated that 8 to 20 percent of such budgets wind up being used for food.primarily because USDA lures program administrators right up to the last momentinto thinking they will get theomoney they need.

He told of a series of meetings on migrant programs run primarily by HEW lastsummer, at whic USDA's Food and Nutrition Service told State and Federalagencies "Don't pend your own money (for food), put your money into educa-tion ... We have lenty of money to picli up your needs."

We -did not k ow the money wasn't there," be said. We honestly thought atthe time that the problem was nonparticipation, that they weren't applying(for food money). At no time were we ever corrected."

One complitating factor is that sometimes the money is there even. when USDAthinks it isn't, Levin said:

Last October, his testimony said, the Texas Migrant Council headquartered inLaredo, applied to USDA's Texas regional office for money to fund a program.

"Although the, regional office determined that the council was eligible, andneeded assistance, it did not approve participation because they thought they hadcommitted their $816,000 appropriation," he said.

Not until 5 months later, late last March, did USDA notify the regional officethat the office had only committed $607,000 and therefore did have the money,he said..

"INSENSITIVITY SEEN"

Sevin said lib could give dozens more examples. He blamed such problems on theD'epartment's "insensitivity to the special probleths of 4nigrant children," itsinadequate data, internal problems, and attempts to serve the administrationragter than the hungry.

Bute said, they produce "extremely adverse effects," such as:California,CIn 22,000 migrant children paid 30 cents for lunches in 1971 instead

of getting them free because their parents had not gone through USDA's requiredprocedure of signing income statements, a procedure Levin called not feasiblefor migrant workers.

In New York, 5,500 migrant children were fed by diverting title I funds in-tended for their education,

In Florida, about $160,000 last year, and an estimated $260,000 this year, willbe diverted from title I educational funds to pay for food that the Food andNutrition Service should be paying for.

"Therefore the Department should authorize categorical (automatic) certifica-tion for migrant children."

"Migrancy is an occupational grouping with known income levels,' he com-mented, but "the response from FNS has been silence."

The Department also frustrates attempts to learn more about its programs,Levin said:

"In August 1971, I attempted to formally gather data on the number of migrantchildren, participating in State programs . . . the information would haveallowed us to plan a program based on, probable needs.

"The letter requesting the data never left the. Department because, as thenote attached to the, letter indicated, 'the time is not right.' "

The note was signed by Herbert Rorex, Chief of the Division of Child Nutrition,Levin said.

His testimony offered serveral recommendations for USDA, including categoriz-ing migrants "as a special target group," automatically certifying migrant chil-dren eligible for free school lunches, and submitting to Congress "a plan of opera-tion specifying where it is, whefo it is going, how it plans. to get there. . . ."

So far, Levin said, repeated criticism from inside and utside the Departmenton its food programs has resulted only in patchwork, temporary fixes that don'tprevent the problem from recurring.

.101THE PLIGHT OF THE MIGRANT

This article is by a migrant woman who prefers to remain anonymous, she says,in order to continue getting work. Her first article appeared on this page lastNovember..

(By a migrant worker)

LA. BELLE, Fla.I don't intend to stop speaking tip until I can get somethin'gbetter for the farm migrant workers here in Hendry County, for we have beenignored long enough.

First, the unemployment compensation, for we are without a day's workfrom the last of May until the first of September. Then we just have to get bythe best we can. To get unemployment checks, they tell us we must draw fromthe last place we worked and that's a little hard to do, for we may just work aweek or two with one farmer and then on to the next one. We have to work hereOne week, somewhere else the next week, so none of the farmers want to Helpus get anything. Sometimes we have to go 100 miles a lay to get work for $12and $13 a day.

I know people think there is lots of work here but there really isn't. A shortseason has to do us a whole year, for after the farmers get through with their

72

70

crops they laugh in your face if you ask them for a day's work. Most of the peoplewe work for don't even takd our social security number.

Next, the medical problem, and that's really pitiful. I can give you a first-hand report on that myself. Several weeks ago I became very ill while in the fieldtrying to work and was brought home and was taken by a neighbor to. the migrantclinic here. The doctor at the clinic told me I had a tumor and it looked bad, andI was bleeding very bad. If you are seriously ill and go to the clinic, they willsend you to a doctor one time, but if'you need to be put in the hospital, that'syour problem, for they say they have no funds to pay for you to go to the hospital.Most of the time they give you a bag full of pills at ithe clinic and tell you tocome back next week. I will say the doctor at the clinic is a very wonderful person.She just hasn't any money to help you.

I Frote to the Division of Migrant Labor in Tallahassee and someone came tosee the and I explained my situation to him and he sent me to the welfare office,almost a month ago. So far I have heard nothing from them and I still have notbeen able to get in the hospital. And all the other migrants have the same problem

-about hospitals.We don't have an OMICA (Organized Migrants in Community Action) office

here in La Belle. They do have one in Immokalee, but there are hundreds- ofmigrants there, so we just try to help ourselves and they come to meetings hereand try to help, but OMICA doesn't have any funds, either.

Now, my favorite subject. Lotsof people here have stopped buying food stamps,because they are so high and some pay more than others. (My husband has tofurnish his own transportation to work, for he has to go about 30 miles, so heneeds a car.) I can give you my own bills and the money we had coming in for1 month:

My husband's total pay for the month was $237. Rent was $85, water $19.28,electrit bill $12.50, gas for cooking $10.85, car $65, life insurance $32, and gas forwork $12. All this comes to $236.63, which left us 37 cents.

So I went to the food stamp office, because we needed food, and they wantedme to pay $36 for $60 worth of stamps for a month and I just didn't have themoney. And $60 will not buy food for a month.

The rent hero is terrible, $125 a month for a small trailer. Lots of the men justsleep out on the river banks, for most of the time they can't afford the rent. Alsolots of the people have to. pay more for food stamps than I do.

The farmers and the city and county commissioners here just don't care aboutthe migrants, since they get all their work dorie. They want them to just pack upand leave until they necd them again, and lots of them are just too old to travelaround now.

Oh, yes, I shouldn't forget the piece work that we are supposed to make somuch mo oing. If you can pick 12 boxes of oranges, they will pay you about,$3. Most pRiple might make. $6 or $7 a day.

I don't know if anything I say will ever do any, good, but God knows I havetried and I will continue to do so as long as I am able, for it might help someonethat needs help and especially the children._

[From the Atlanta, Ga., Constitution, May 2, 19721

MIGRANT CHILDREN1S FOOD PLAN BLASTED

WAsnmaron.An authority on hunger programs told Congress Monday thatthe feeding of migrant children is foundering on inefficiency, Mismanagement, and"a pervasive insensitivity to the needs of poor children."

Marvin Levin, who resigned from the Agriculture Department last week as a"matter of conscience," said feeding programs actually handicap efforts of otheragencies to help the poor and the hungry.

During the testimony,. Sen. Adlai Stevenson III, Democrat-Illinois, remarkedthat President Nixon might be better advised to visit some school lunch programs"instead of going to cookouts with Texas millionaires to assure themithe oildepletion allowance will be retained."

Stevenson referred" to Nixon's wepkend visit with Texans at the ranch ofTreasury Secretary John B. Connally.

Levin's and Stevenson's remarks came at a joint hearing of the Senate Sub-committee- on Migratory Labor and the, Select Committee on Nutrition andHuman Needs.

73

71

Levin said "Other Federal agencies, responsible for other, nonfood aspects of amigrant child's life, are forced to divert large portions of their budgetsforexample, educationinto food assistance."

He estimated these diverted funds may account for as much as 10 percentof the budgets for children of migrant laborers maintained by the, Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, the Office ofEconomic Opportunity, and theDepartment of Labor.

The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, he said, has no systematic planningand "its resources are needlessly dissipated."

In one case, he said the service isstill trying to learn the costs of but year'ssummer programs but can't because someone lost the computer tapes. ,

[From the Palm Beech, Fla., Post, May 10, 1972)

DIRECTOR TELLS OF AID WASTEMIGRANT PROGRAM REPORT

(By Dean Jones, Post staff writer)

BELLE GLADE.The food stamps program sales director for western PBeach County agreed yesterday with a report showing emergency assistance farSouth Florida farmworkers last year was largely wasted.

Director Robert Varner, who was commodities supervisor in March 1971 whenthe area was designated a disaster area, said the program "was definitely a sham-bles.". A U.S. general Accounting Office (0A0) review of the emergency relief pro-gram, recently released by U.S. RepresentatHre Paul Rogers (Democrat - Florida)reported Federal assistance to. 30,000 people from March 1 to April 30, 1971, costapproximately $9 million.

Rogers asked the GAO to review the program when he received numerous com-plaints that it was not being operated as planned.

Aid received included food stamps, commodities, and public works jobs fundedunder the Department of Labor's Operation Mainslream.

Rogers said the report substantiated allegations that improper unemploymentassistance payments were made and that the State agency placed reliance uponunverified information provided by the applicant in determining eligibility forpayment.

He also said persons employed in the operation' mainstream program continuedto receive unemployment compensation and that food stamps and commoditieswere issued to many persons who didn't qualify.

Varner said he and other commodities supervisors in Dade and Broward Coun-ties know what was going on and asked for a GAO review of the situation.

"The Government sent 15 to 20 people down here who were driving Lincolnsand living in motels," Varner said.

peopletold us not to 'bother with records.

"I saw people who were working at jobs who were also getting food stamps,checks, commodities and any other kind of benefits they could get," Varner said'lltait the government people told us we were to serve the people and not to Worryabout records.

"People were coming down from the U.S. Department of Agriculture," he said,"and special aides to President Nixon were coming down. as Well as nutritionexperts who were telling us what we ought to eat.

"There was quite a turnover in the supervisory personnel," he said. "I think alot of ahem lust decided to come down because they wanted a Florida vacation."

Varner said his office distributed enough food to feed 90,000 people during. the'emergency period, with a number of people coming through the lines several times.

He said anyone could have received food stamps or commodities at the time,whether or not they were employed and regardless of how much money they wereearning.

"It was a complete waste," Varner said."We saw what was happening and we knew our records were a shambles but

there was nothing we could do. The supervisors from Washington just took over."There. were farmers," he said, "who were advertising for workers, willing to pay

$2.50 an hour, and they couldn't get labor. We posted ads like that eyery day butthey were ignored.

"After it was all over," Varner said, "we were left with a tremendous amount of -records we couldn't trace. We wanted to be let off the hook so we asked for thisinvestigation and I think this report does that."

74.

72

Representative. Rogers said there should have been closer coordination betweenState and Federal agencies during the emergency and a greater advantage shouldhave been taken of the nonprofit migrant labor assistance programs alreadyexisting in south, Florida.

"The GAO report gives consideration to the fact tuna was of the essence inimplementing the emergency assistance," Rogers said, "and as a result, adequatecontrols may have been difficult to implement.

"I can understand that initially this would be the case," Rogers said, "but I dobelieve that as the progratn became more fully operatiVe, efforts could have beenmade to correlate agency activities and verification of cla4ns."

Rogers said he is having copies of the report mailed. to Governor Reubin Askew' and the State Departments of Commerce and Health and Rehabilitative Services.

He is also having copies sent to the U.S. Departments of Labor, Agricolture,and Health, Education, and Welfare as well as the U.S. Office of EmergencyPreparedness.

"I will urge these agencies to change their emergency procedures in order thatefficiency and duplication of services can be avoided in future emergency as theseefforts," he said.

. PROBING FEDERAL "FORM POLLUTION"

Just going into business today is a frightening bookkeeping task: Even thesmallest corporation must fill our form 1120, with its 19 different schedules, toreport its income. A partnership must complete form 1065 with 13 schedules.

A survey by the Christian Science Monitor turned up cases of sole operators ofsmall businesses, or husband-wife proprietors, who wanted to hire help--butdidn3t simply because of the massive addditional paperwork which would berequired.

An especially provocative survey finding: A small hospital, operating in asparsely populated section of the west coast where there were no other suchfacilities to serve the injured or ill, was considering closing its -doorssimplybecause of the nuisance of having to deal with "no less than .23 governmentalagencies."

Senator Thomas McIntyre (Democrat-New Hampshire) who chairs the in-vestigating subcommittee deplores the Federal Government's "form pollution"not only for the unconscionable wagebut also because of the "worry, frustra-tion, bitterness, and resentment" caused to the smallest (especially) of the 5.5million small businesses in the United States. He also points out that thereharassed small businesses employ nearly half-45 percent of all employedAmericans..

This point is well taken; but the implications appear even deeper. The wastein proliferated forms is doubtlessly at least a contributing cause to the graverwaste in ineffectual and 'duplicated programs. How can clear decisions be madeunder clouds of confusion?

Let it be hoped that the McIntyre subcommittee probes deeply. But let it alsobe remembered that this is a matter of greater significance than the jurisdictionof one small subcommitteeit demands the attention of the whole Congress andadministration and could, indeed, well become a major national issue.

For a quick glimpse of bureaucracy in a nutshell, consider the case of the Fed-eral official in charge of feeding migrant children, who quit his job in frustration:He claimed the children weren't being fed as, instead, experts wrote letterscosting "as much as $2,000" trying to explain why the children weren't being fed.

To those direct-action types, who would point out Opt a few $2,000 letterscould furnish a lot of meals for hungry children, let it quickly be .pointed out-that isn't the way Washington works.

Similarly, consider the rederal highway official who bewailed, in recent con-gressional testimony, that time lag in beginning Federal highway construction(between the initiation of a project proposal and the actual pouring of concrete)had become as much as 13 years.

'iPerhaps with longer study," the official sarcastically suggested, "the problemmight disappear. The towns to be served by the proposed highway might dieaway * * *."

Such reports as this, however, may be insignificant compared to the "horrorstories" on tap Its the Senate Subcommittee' on Government Regulations thisweek started hearing protests froth businessmen, on the endless proliferation ofFederal redtape.

Big business with its vast accounting departments, and so forth, is at, leastbetter geared to handle the demands of endless Government reports. Buk small

73

businessmen are required to fill out an average of 75 forms a year, usually lengthyand often in duplicate or triplicate.

Four years ago (it would be even higher today) a Government Service Ad-ministration study placed the cost of Federal paperworkprinting, shuffling,and storing all required formsat a staggering $18 billion a year. But this was onlythe half of itfor it cost businessmen at least that much to fill out all the forms andreturn them to the Government.

(From the Washington, D.C., Post, May 2,19721

FOOD UNIT ACCUSED .o ir INEFFICIENCY

(United Press International)

An. Agriculture Department official who quit hisqob out of frustration testifiedyesterday that the agency in charge of feeding migrant children ifi 80 enmeshedin redtape the cost of merely preparing a letter rangestfrom $55 to $2,000.

At a Senate hearing, Martin Levin, who leaves today to help feed the hungryin Bangladesh, offered a sharp critique of the operations of the Child Nutrition.Division. i,

"I know of no plot to promote the continued r of migrant and otherneedy children," he said. Rather, he recited w termed "an account ofbureaucratic inefficiency, of mismanagement, of ine de, of a pervasive,if notconscious insensitivity to the needs of poor children and the demands imposedon Otte who hope to feed them." ..

One reason for the high cost of writing a letter, he said is that "employeesearning $16,000 to $20,000 in salaries frequently spend more than half their timeproofreading letters written by staff membersa task which could be performedby a good secretary." .

Levin said local civic groups sponsoring programs to feed migrant childrenmust receive the approval of as many as 11 State and regionatoffices. One group,required to file forms with seven agencies, received the approval of a sixth butnot, the seventh so its program was not funded.

(From the Washington Daily News, May 7,19721

WIIAT HAPPENS WHEN A GIANT OF INDUSTRY TRYS To TREAT ITS 1,000 MIGRANTWORKERS, HUMANELY THE COKE PLAN

(By Judy Flander)

HousTori.--"You may walk in the mud but you have to keep your head inthe stars," is the philosophy of Donald B. Keough, 44, the president of Coca-Cola Foods Division, who is in charge of a rare experiment in human relationswith migrant workerswho not only walk in the mud but whose reality is grimand without hope. In the past 2 years, the Coca-Cola Co. has given year-roundjob; to 500 of the 1,000 migrant workers who pick oranges and lemons 7 monthsa year in the 30,000 acres of citrus grove the company acquired when it boughtthe Minute Maid Corp. in 1960. These people lived in company 'shacks duringthe harvest season, then moved across the country picking peaches and tomatoes,cherries and apples, from the Carolinas to New York. Their children, who workedin the groves with them, received little schooling and there *was no such thing as aholiday.

FORTUNATE FEW

Now a fortunate fewthere are 250,000 migrant workers in the United States,80,000 of them in Florida alonedo cultivating and maintenance when theharvest season is over and get medical and life insurance, retirement plans,paid vacations and holidays. "They're full-fledged employees of the companywith the same benefits and opportunities I have," said Mr. Keough. Coca-Colahopes eventually to have all its 1,000 migrant workers on a permanent basis.Meanwhile, it has given medical and health benefits to those who stay on themove and, last fall, transported a number of them in company trucks to andfrom New York where they worked during the apple haivest.

The permanent work form is paid a weekly wage plus piece work which hasenabled more than 100 families so far to buy new homes on a beautiful lake site

76.

s.

71,1

purchased for them by Coca-Cola, Lakevieiv Park near Frostproof, Fla. Thecompany had to spend $40,000 for a water treatment and sewer system becausethe town of Frostproof refused to extend its services to Lakeview.

So far, Coke has poured $3 million into its agricultural labor project. Themoney subsidises medical programs day care center, adult education classes

Kand a community center. But Mr. Keough emphasizes that the project "is not awelfare plan." There are four community boards, consisting entirely of workerswho are encouraged to run all the facilities and are being taught how to obtainGovernment money for various programs. It is Coca-Cola's dearest wish that itsmigrant workers will become self-sufficient and wcn't need the company anymore.

The workersabout 15 percent Chicano, 65 percent black and the rest whiteare making the adjustment from a nomad life with alacrity and a certain amountof awe.

"LIKE A BIRD"

"I used to feel like a bird, I'd light in a tike," one of them told Mr. Keough.while another said, just as poetically, "For years all I had to look forward towas to climb up ladders and eventually to climb down ladders." Now theirchildren are attending Florida schools or the company day care center instead ofworking in the groves. Children under 16 are no longer allowed to pick fruit.

Why did it take 10 Years for Coke to get around to doing something for itsmigrant employees? That's a question Congress wanted answered, too. Evenwhile Coca -Cola was making its Initial plans in 1970, an NBC documentary,"Migrant- an NBC* White Paper," singled out Coke as a blatant example of allthat is wrong with Florida's migrant workers. Former Coca-Cola President J.Paul Austin, called ti) testify before the Senate Subcommittee on MigratoryLabor, explained thatlie had not been aware of the special problems of migrantworkers until 1968'when he began reading "about the crusade of Cesar Chavez(president of the United Farm Workersrin California."

Mr. Austin thereupon sent J. Lucian Smith, now president of Coca-Cola, toFlorida "to make certain that workers in our groves were not living in the sub-standard conditions that Mr. Chavez described. . . ."

Mr. Smith found that things were, indeed, very bad. Mr. Austin next sent a taskforce from Scientific Resources, Inc. (SRI) o( Union, N.J., to study the situationand tell him what to do about it. SItI's recommendations eventually became knownas "the Coke plan," and a Coca-Cola personnel executive and vice president ofthe foods division, William Kelly,, wag sent to Florida to carry it out. Mr. Kelly isstill there. "He's our most visible man involved in this activity," said Mr. Keough.

Mr. Keough inherited the project when he became president of the food divisionin January of 1971, and he talks about it with obvious pride and pleasure.

THREE-YEAR CONTRACT

On March 1 of this year, Coca-Cola signed a 3 -year contract with the UFWwhich Mr. Keough describes as "fair and good for the company, the workers, andthe union." He stressed that strikes and bitterness did not proceed the signing as itdid with glomeliins in (7alifornia.

The project is still not without its detractors. Some claim that too few are beingserved. Others think that Coke has spent too much money to make the project afeasible example for other growers to emulate. And not a few wonder how long thecompany will pour moneyinto stn "(joke plan."

Still, no one else except Cesar Chavez and his union has done anything ever forthe migrant worker. If the Coca-Cola company is not pointing out the exact route,it is at least demonstrating that migrant workers respond to being treated ashuman beings, just like the rest of us.

JULY 5, 1972.Mr. HENRY M. RAMIREZ,Chairman, Cabinet Committer on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People,

Washington, D.C.DEAR MR. ItAsunta: I was most interested in your recent comments about the

success of Department of Agriculture food and nutrition progratns in meeting theneeds of the Spanish-speaking population.

i1

77.

75O

As chairman of the Migratory Labor Subcommittee, I recently heard testimonyfrom an official of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Marvin Levin, Stating thatthe needs of migrants are still not being met. I am enclosing a copy of that state-ment.

Could you please tell me to what extent the issues and problems raised byMr. Levin have now been resolved. Your immediate attention to this matter wouldbe greatly appreciated.

With best wishes.Sincerely,

ADLAX E. STEVENSON III,Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor.

[News Remo]

CABINET COMMITTEE ON OPPOIRPUNITIES ron SPANISH-SPEAXING PEOPLEOFFICE or PUBLIC AFFAIR'S AND Ittronunton

DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPIMIENTING CABINETConurrree's GOALS

USDA TO EXPAND SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, ASSIST SPANISH-SPEAXIN0 BUSINESS-MEN, AND OFTEN BILINGUAL INFORMATION

Contact: J. Raul Espinosa (202) 382-6601 Office (703) 892-4352 Resident*."Every State will have a positive outreach plan outlined in its food stamp

plan of operation by July 1," said Assistant Undersecretary of AgricultureRichard Lyng at a recent meeting with Henry M. Ramirez, Chairman of Presi-dent Nixon's Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People.

Lyng, with a delegation from the Department of Agriculture (USDA), metWith Chairman Ramirez to discuss the recent progress of the Food and NutritionService- (FNS) and their work with Spanieh-spealcingcommunities.

Since 1968, the number of needy children receiving free and reduced priceschool lunckes has increased from 2.9 million to 8.3 million in 1972. Lyng attributedthe increase to "a dramatic expansion in the amount of funding allotted to theprogram. The department's budget has increased from $539 million for fiscalyear 1968 to $4.1 billion for fiscal year 1973."

More than one half of USD 's family food assistance participants are fromethnic groups, including 13 perc nt Spanish speaking.

USDA, as a result of Pre it Nixon's directive to Cabinet Committee mem-bers to aid the Spanish speaking in 1971, and the establishment of his 16 pointprogram, has placed an increased emphasis on aiding the Spanish speaking..Juandel Castillo has been appointed Director of the Food Distribution Service. Withthe Cabinet Committee, he Is arranging a series of 12 seminars to aid Spanish-speaking businessmen obtain Federal contracts for fast food operations. Thefirst of these seminars took place on May 19 in San Antonio, Tex. Others are tofollow.

Agriculture now has a list of 31 publications in Spanish which dent with theelements of the balanced diet.. Mr. Ramirez said, "Many Spanish-speakingchildren do not learn in school as easily as their Anglo counterparts because theydo not have the proper diets."

"With food stamps," he added, "needy Spanish-speaking people can improvetheir health and in turn be more fit, both physically and mentally, to handleeducation and job training."

Over 209 radio and TV stations presently receive tapes from USDA on nationalschool lunch programs. USDA has also provided fact sheets designed to emphasizethe civil rights aspects (fair hearings procedure) of food assistance in a bilingualformat.

Another innovation by USDA is the printing of food labels and directions inboth Spanish and English This enables the Spanish-speaking American who is nottotally at ease with the English language to be sure of what he is buying and the .

method of preparation. This program, now only in its initial stages, is scheduledfor expansion in upcoming months.

In the past 4 years, the food stamp program has increased in outreach by almost8 million people. Food programs have reached a point now where they areavailable In every county in the Nation except eight (three in Colorado, and oneeach In Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas).

716

U.S. DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE,FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., August 26, 1972.Mr. HENRY M. RAMIREZ,Chairman, Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for Spanish- Speaking People,

Washington, D.C.DEAR Mn. RAMIREZ: Secretary Butz has asked us to thank you for your,recent

letter which requested urgent consideration of issues relating to food assistancefor migrants and for their children in particular.

We are enclosing our detailed comments on each of the recommendationsoutlined, together within sampling of materials which contribute to our continuing

,efforts to meet effectively the food needs of migrant and Spanish-speaking groups.We share your concern; if we can provide you with further information, please

let us know.Sincerely,

HOWARD P. DAVIS,Acting Administrator.

Enclosure.

The points raised for consideration will be covered in the sequential order inwhich they wore presented.

1. Categorization (by the Food and Nutrition Service and the Departmentof. Agriculture) of migrants as a special target group.

To categorically 'certify all migrants as a special group automatically eligiblefor family food assistance and free lunches would necessitate a change in the law.For example, Public Law 91-248 mandated that the determination of eligibilityfor free lunches be based on family income, the number in the familKunit, and thenumber of children attending school or service institutions. The law furtherprovides that family income be reported on an affidavit (application) executedby an adult member of the household. Consequently, the law has needssitatedtho implementation of a documentation procedure which requires families toreport income.

We would like to say, however, that Food and Nutrition Service personnel, onrecent field monitoring activities, have seen that State and local-level officials doconsider the migrant as a special target group. In schools, for example, schoolofficials do identify the migrant child as such; and, as a result, more often thannot, he is provided free meals under all Department child nutrition programs.

Likewise with our family food assistance programs, we are continuing in ourefforts to make them more responsive to the needs of the migrant. Following areexamples of this effort in our food stamp program:

(a) Translation of publications into Spanish (see attachment A).(b) Use by States' of volunteers to help migrants complete applications and

establishment of itinerant certification and issuance offices convenient to themigrant population.

(c) Free food stamps for the very poor.(d) Mandatory outreach programs by,State agencies in decerdance with FNS

Instructions which specifically direct States to give "duo respect to ethnic groups."(e) A provision that food stamp eligibility be retained for 60 days after 'a

household moves from one food stamp area to another.2. All-inclusive certification of migrant children for eligibility for school lunch

programs, school breakfast programs, and special food service programs undertitle I.

If schools are designated as title I target schools, then they should be gettingadditional consideration from State school lunch directors for more special assist-ance money to cover free lunch costs for migrants. Also title I moneys are stillused at the discretion of State and local title I directors for food service to migrants,However, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and this Depart-ment have urged the use of title I moneys for -educational programs instead of foodprograms and have accelerated the displacement of such funds with USDA funds.

3. Pursual of adequate methods to serve migrant children year round regardlessof their location or the number of times their locatimi changes.

Schools within the migrant stream are generally accustomed to the sporadic com-ings and goings of the migrant farnily. Their arrivals are anticipated and in mostschools a system has been established to handle this situation. Applications for theschool lunch program are made available along with other required registrationforms for new pupils. In most cases, the migrant child is given almost immediateaccess to the free lunch program. .

79

77

For the most part, the migrant child is in school in the fall, winter, and into earlyApril. Generally, it has been observed that they are not attending school is theyundertake their spring migration. .

We can safely say that, while the migrant child is in school, he is being reached;and that approximately 90 to 95 percent of the migrant children receive theirlunches free or at a reduced price.

Further, the 1971 amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1964 provides that foodstamp eligibility may be retained by a household for 60 days after it has moved toa now food stamp location. This provision was aimed specifically at migrants. Inaddition, all new applications fqr food stamps must now be processed within 30days.

4. Specific program development to attract migrant children, especially thedevelopment of specialized Mexican variety menus by USDA Technical ServiceStaff.

In order to give more emphasis to ethnic recipes and menus, the Food And Nutri-tion Service L9 starting an ongoing program to work with Mexican - Americans indeveloping quantity recipes acceptable to Mexican-American schoolchildren. Thisis in addition to the menu suggestions already included on the recipe cards in"Quantity Recipes for Type A School Lunches' provided free to all schools in thenational school lunch program. This file includes several standardized Mexican-American recipes.

So that cultural preferences can be considered, menus for schools arc generallyprepared at State, county, and local levels. Copies of materials from New Mexicoand Colorado are included in the attached kit of materials (see attachment B).

For the family food assistance programs, recipes have recently been developedfor the protein-fortified tortilla flour (similar to Masa 'farina) that is beingconsidered for donation. A copy of the recipes is in the kit.

Moro family-sized, Mexican-American recipes will be developed this yeiti as theFood and Nutrition Service starts a program to work directly with Mexican-Americans in developing recipes that will be acceptable to their families. In addi-tion, a regional cookbook is to be published this year that will include recipes andfood- use suggestions sent in from Mexican-Americans using donated foods.

Publications which are designed for use in USDA's food programs, such as"The Good Foods Coloring Book," recipe, leaflets, and the "Daily Food Guido,"are translated into Spanish. These- materi4s are available free for Mexican-American families using donated f ds or food stamps.

FNS has funded a project title "nutri n education program with focus onmigrant children and their mothers" in conjune on with the Whateom-SkagitRural Opportunities Council in Mt. Vernon, W h. Its objectives aro: (1) Toimplement a nutrition education progranii for. Mexican migrant children withrespect to their culture and food patternfOicl stresses the basic four, and (2) toimplement a consumer and nutrition edirsation,prdgram.for migrant childrens'mothers using the same principles of niitrition taught to their children in theday-care centers.

One special feature of the project IS the development of a Basle Rour.YoodGroup Chart, developed by their Mexican Woman's Advisory Cotineit. thatillustrates foods indigenous to their culture. After the chart is tested with thechildren and mothers in the program this suiainer,kthe Department hopes to make t.,it available for use nationally. It will aid In relating the foods these children eatat home with those that are served in the child nutrition programs at school.

...In 1971 USDA sponsored five regional seminars for school food service personnel

on nutrition education. One area of emphasis in several of the seminars was tbe ,planning and preparation of lunches and breakfasts which appeal to children ofall ethnic groups. Particularmpli is in the West and. Southwest was placed onthe development of menus which 'heal to Mexican-American children.

During fiscal year 1972 the Department distributed about 42.2 million pounds 'of pinto beans through its food'assistance programs in an effort to cater to thepreference of special groups. We are presently examining the possibility of provid-ing tortilla flour.

The new labels for donated foods carry the Spanish name for each item (seeattachment C). Information in Spanish appears on labels of all foods requiringreemagtitution or mixing. Similarly, some labels show recipes in Spanish and,where space permits, bi4ingual storage instructions. Furthermore, to benefitrecipients who cannot read English easily, the new labels bear illustrations whichdepict the enclosed food if a color which corresponds to that of the food.

While the above program developments have, or will have, national impact,there ar.e also a number of developments at the local level that can be pointed out.

80 201 072--0

80

In Michigan, a summer program title I director employs a Mexican-Americanfood service director for the food service program. Each year this woman travelsfrom Texas where she works as a cook during the regular school year. The womantrains the regional cooks to prepare foods in the style accustomed to the migrantchild. She even had prepared/a loose-leaf style cookbook containing het recipes.

In Texas, a number of exanfples can be given. One interesting case of a programaimed specifically at Mexican-American migrant schoolchildren is the CentralSchool at McAllen, Tax. The three campuses of this school offer an acceleratedprogram which permits about 1,000 migrant children to finish the School year in

r7 months through extended school days. The school lunch program and the school.breakfast,program are available to the children, most of whom receive their mealsfree. .

In Weslaco and Mission, Text financial and technical assistance were providedfor new school food service facilities. The neW facilities will, provide service toapproximately 12,000 children with 80 to 90 percent of them eligible for free orreduced price meals. Most orthese children are Chicanos and many are migrants.The financial condition of both school districts made it impossible for the districtsto finance buildings and equipment for school feeding purposes. However, througha remarkable cooperative venture among six Federal agencies, local school,community, and State officials, has this project been realized. In addition to theoriginal cash and technical assistance provided by USDA for the food serviceequipment, the Department will provide continuing support to the food programswith cash and donated foods..

In Virginia, a State school lundh nutritionist has cooperated with the title Isummer programs by developing menus especially suited to the migrant childten.The nutritionist has taken special steps to insure that the fruits and vegetablesharvested by the migrant parents are on the menus. Children are made aware ofthe importance of their parents' work.

5. Expansion of the number of variety of schools and institutions which mayfacilitate the operation of aboVe-mentioned (see number II) programs in order toinsure responsiveness of Federal nutrition service programs to' migrant needs.

The Department is currently engaged in a major effort to extend the childnutrition programs to all schools currently without food service. A three-prongedeffort is involved. By law, participation in the programs is voluntary on the partof local school authorities; and the Department and States are trying to show that,with current Federal funding and technical knowledge, there are no reasons forschools not to participate.

With regard to service institutions which Can reach preschool migrant childrenall year and school-age migrant children in the summer, expansion efforts willdepend on the following factors:

(a) The authorization for the program is currently scheduled to expire nextJune, and the administration.and the Congress are looking closely at the programat this time. Sufficient program funds are not currently available to expand year,round activities under the program in all States; however, this situation is beinggiven particularly close consideration to see if immediate action should be taken.

(b) The involvement of more organizations tp act on the migrant's behalf inthe summer when he leaves his home base.

6. Coordination of FNS with other Federal and State migrant programs tomorb efficiently servo migrant needs.

We have established liaison with a number of Federal agencies involved withmigrant services; that is, Migrant Division, 0E0; Migrant and Indian Headstart,Office of Child Development; title I Migrant, HEW; Census -Bureau. We havemet with these people on numerous occasions to exchange program, informationseeking the means to assist one another in our mutual goal. For example, theMigrant Headstart Division of OCD provided us with the names and Mentionsof all their grantees. We were able to determine for OCD that, except for oneprogram, all migrant Ileadstart programs were receiving USDA assistance forfood and nonfcod items.

We have visited with six State migrant directors on two recent, faotfindingWiztrips. W. have traveled with their individual staffs quite extensively. They are

aware of USDA'S concern to improve the effectiveness of child nutrition programsfor the migrant child.

7. Continued program of data collection to aid in rendering maximum servicetb migrant children and adults.

Tho family food assistance progratns require semi-annual reports from th &Stateagencies on the racial/ethnic participation in these programs. While these reportsdo not specifically isolate the migrant population, they do indicate the number of

81

79

Spanish-Americans participating in these programs. The latest available informa-tion shows that 8.2 percent of all persons participating in the family assistanceprograms are Spanish-American. Also, field reports indicate areas with substantialmigrant participation and alert the Food and Nutrition Service to any problemswhich may affect the migrants.

Through now administrative review requirements, the Department has startedto collect racial/ethnic participation data for the child-feeding programs. Inaddition, FNS has stepped up efforts tocellect data on migrant participation in theDepaytment's child nutrition programs. Through cooperation with 0E0; MigrantDivision, the migrant State plans of operation have been MU. q.vailable. toUSDA for analysis and for statistical gathering 'purposes. We' have ring visitsby FNS personnel to four major home-base States and several receiver States,gathered data to augment the growing data base on mirgrant schoolchildrenmaintained in the Food and Nutrition Service.

8. Effective monitoring and evaluating procedures te, insure the implementationof actions taken on the recommendations mentioned above.

The .foregoing responses to your recommendations give evidence a actionsunderway to monitor and evaluate our/programs for migrants. The attachedmaterial also attests to the efforts being rnadeAto attract these groups and to helpthem with effective food assistance whereverThey may be.

,82

APPENDIX III

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT-OF AGRICULTUREFOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250

NOTI

Public Law 917671, enacted January il, 1971, makes significantreforms in the..FOodStamp.Program and provides the Department.of Agriculture Withva welcoMe opportunity to achieve thePresident's landmark goal..of May 1969 to eliminate hunger inAmerica, for all time.

9 - . : .

Because of thevlar-reaching effeCef this.new law we are:departing. from Our usual practice, in preparing relatesregulation revisions, te.Obtain4theOmments and suggestionsof a broadpspectrum-of interested parties. -These comments :and suggestion ; will receive fulliednsideration before the

I regulations are'issuedin final form.. .,... , .., .

.

. -.. Y.

Accordingly, we are attaching for your review the'proposedrevisionis of the- Food,BtampProgramrigulations, drawn to meettherequiteximAs Of Public Law 91-671.

We welcome your Comments and appreciate your working with ustoward the goal of improving the nutritional level of all needy

. people. --. : -\

. - 1 .

Flower WO 2-1821 '

41*David--DU As-4p26

UNITIO3 STATUS DEPAgnatiror AGRICULTURE:

Washington, April 15, 1971

USDA Issues Proposed New Food Stamp RegulAtionst

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today proposed new regulars for its

Food Stamp Program:to implement amendments to the Food Stamp...Act enacted in

.

Public Law 91..671..

Concurrent with the proposed regulations,-.USDA also announced national uniform

income eligibility standards and new issuance tables which spell out how ouch

participants pay for their food stamp allotments.

Public comments are invited. on the proposals, which will be published in au&

Federal Register on Friday, April 16, 1971. (Income eligibility standeids lad

. issuance tables, for Alaska and Hawaii will be in the'Register Saturday. April 17.)

Written comments may be mailed or delivefed by Monday, May 17 to James I: Springfield;

Director, Food Stamp Division,7Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.

Individual copies of the Federal Register containing the proposed regulations'

may.he purchased fOr:20 cents each from the Superintendent -of Documents, u.sc.Povern-,..

molt Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Specify the date of the desired issue.

Highlights of the prokosals announced today ere --

7 -Inceme and resources: 'Eligibility for the Food StAlp Program will he determined_

according to uniform nationAtinderds sat by the.SecretatyOf Agriculture.

Standards for Alaska and Hawaii have been adjusted in accordance with the separate

poysity guidoklinhs established for those Staten.

5720

e

USDA 1215-71

Monthly mesilua incoie eligibility levels are

48 StatesHousehold size and. D.C. Alaska Hawaii

,

1'11r:sun $16 0 $200 $142- person 210 262 2423.4erson 293 366 3374- person 360 450 -.414

5.person . 427 534 4916- person 493 616 567

7-person 547 684 6298..persan 600 750 690

Each additionalPerson Add $53 Add.$66 Add $61

The standards. apply to all households, including those receiving public

assistance,[.

Resour4ces otherthan income, such as savings accounts, negotiable securities'

and certain property, would be limited to $1500 per.household, plus an additional

$1500 for hoOseholds of two or more containing a member 65 years of age or over.

Excluded from resources are the value of such items 0 a home, household goods,

car, personal effects, cash value of life insurance policies. income - producing

property, and tools and machinery 'islandal to self- support. However, resources

ubuld include such othev.typei of nonliquid issets.as buildings, land,,or other

.real of personal property, at fair market value. ,

Food Stamp allotment: Allotments offood stamps woul Continue to be leered

to cost of the economy diet, with the amount of money paid by hoes oldenot to

exceed 30 percent of income. There would be no payment reqUired from ont and two.

person households with incomes under $20 per month, orfrom AU other houaeholds

with incomes under $30.

Under the new law, participants may elect to have their payments for foqd

n-e'stamps deducted regularly from money tbeg get under any federally-aided public

assistance' program. Households would also be able to elect, at time of issuance,

to receive three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter of their monthly food stamp

allotment, with their payment adjusted accordingly." If a family chooses less than

its full 4.106.44 during; any purchase period, it would not be permitted:to return

later for the balance, for that period.

'Examples of monthly allotments and amounts to be paid by recipients'in the

48 contiguous States and District of Columbia:

for a Household of: 1-person 2-persons 4-persons 6-persons

PoodStemp $ 32 $-60 $ 108

Requirement

$ 148

Net Income

Purchase

$ 0 - 19.99 0

20 - 29.99 1

100 109.99 18 ° 23 25 27

150 - 169.99 26 -36 41 43

190 - 209.99 48 53 . 55.

?50 - 269.99 71 73

290 - 309.99 83 85

330 - .359.99 95 97

450 - 479.99 133

NOM Because food costs are determined to be signif-icantly higher in Alaska and Hawaii, food stampallotments are greater\than those of other States

shown above. Separate issuance'tables for Alaskaand Hawaii will be published in the FederalRegister Saturday, April 17.

85

- 4 =

Hardship allowances' In determining eligibility for the program and the

amount of money the eligible household is to pay ("purchase .requirement") for its

allotment of food stamps, a net income figure, is determined by deducting certain

'hardship" ellosiancss from the total money coming into the household.

The proposed regulations WP4id permit deductions for shelter costs. that

'excelid 30 percent of incoee, medical payments in excess of $10 per month, and child

care costs necessary for a household member to accept or continue employment, and

unusual expenses resulting from disaster or casualty losses.' Payments on business-

related land or equipment by the self employed would not be deductible, nor would

educational expenses of students.

Household definition; All member*, of household under 60 years of age must be

related by blood, affinity, or other legal relationship, sanctioned by State law,

in order for the household to eligible for food steeps. Foster,b.. adopted andother children under 18 years o%.leay,b, ihAthe household. Also, an Unrelated

roomer or boarder is not considered part of the household, and will not disqualify the.

household from the Food Stamp Program.

Tex dependents: ,..NO household could be elloted,food stamps if it has a member

over 16 years old who is claimed as a dependent for Federal income, tax pUrposes

by a member of another household which, itself ls not eligible-tot either food

stamps or USDA donated foods.

Work regittrationt The proposid re#Ulatienii.0060 registration as part of

the application process.aed subsequent recertifibet(Oni-;fer..04;Ws6eqi,if the

household his an able-bodied member between.164110;-03',1Veliee'theteSsber. lei.' (1)

responsible for the care of depindeotiiiidte6;bn6-er 16 Cir:ot,trktiet104ults,

(2) a student enrolled at least iyaf school at-gia4414*14nygT,teocPs-..

Maul by any Federal, State or locil government agency, (3) work)W4t iait i0.

86

hours per week. /he work registration form is to be forwarded by the food stamp

certification office to the State or Federal employment office for the area. rot

the household to be eligible for stamps, tee registered somber or members of the

household most cooperate in seeking, and accept employment of a type and.in a

location reasonably consistent with physical and mental fitness, With consideration

of transportation costs and commuting time, and at wages, includine'pioce.rate basis,

that are the highest of applicable Fedetil and State minimums orther authorised

Fest:mai regulations, but in no caste less than $1.30 per hour. The registrant would

not be required to join, resign from, or refrain from joining any recognized labor.

organization as a condition of employment,: nor accept work offered at a site which

is undergoing a strike or lockout.

Heal Service: Elderly participants who are so disabled or feebilAtitat they

cannot adequately prepare ill of their own meals, arycLum food stamps. to pay for

"meals on wheels" delivered to them by non - profit meal services, Waveilable.

The delivery services would be authorised to redeem stamps by USDA's Food and

Nutrition Service similarly to retailers and wholesalers.

Dual food assistance: When a Food Stamp Frogram opens in a county or city

that ha, been distributing USDA donated .foods, both programs would be permitted at

the Statets request for transition period up to three months. both programs could

be operated permanently provided the national eligibility standards are used for

both programs, together with adequate controls to prevent double participation by

4the same household. NOperating expense funds" which are.available to the States

from USDA for family food donations could not be used for such permanent dual.

operations, however.

(more)

88

v./

7

The proposed regulations also

Contain provisions used at eliminating abuses of the program, in addition

to the new household definition and the tax depindency requirement, mandatory

Mooney control,. plans are to'he part of each States Food Stamp Flan of Operation,

end misuse of authorization to purchase cards (the document households get when

certified for participation, commonly termed ATP cards) is to be subject to the

same penalties u unauthorized issuance and use of the food stamp coupons themselves

Modify present 'lair hearing" procedures so that applicants who are improperly

denied benefits and subsequently gain themat a hearing receive credit at state

expense toward their purchase reqUiremont to thi extent that benefits were denied,

and that households overcharged because of improper certification receive cash

repayments.

Permit continued eligibility of a certified household for 60 days following

a nova fro's one food stamp area to another, provided the household circumstances

remain the's**.

Require each State to develop an 'outreach' program to be appioved by !NS

as part of the State Food Stamp Plan of Operation. _

. 87

8 9

1p

hIfillknk""sTIur PNVI.pury oELmIAScctoft

88

Food Research and 'Action Center

423 WEST Nays STREETNEW YORK; N. Y..10027

(212) 636-3004-

Janoert 26, 1971

To all those concerned with farm workers and the :wood StampPrograms

Due to the recent passage of amendments to therood Stamp Act, USDA is in the, process of writing nowregulations. This Offers interested groups the appals-tunity to make reoommendatiens as to what the regulatiOns

41 should include. Clearly, since farm workers have neversignificantly benefited from the rood Stamp Program,suggestions for revising _the- regulations so that theprogram will function for farm workers are necessary.

Enclosed:

1: A amt. of 11 suggestions for revision ck thePeed Stamp regulations; With each of these is ,Ost WC-planation of what legal basis there-may be for its re-vision and the problems which it would attempt to el te-

2. A proposal foe* uniform, national pr

will not deal directly with such a procedure: el OnAt117for annual certification of farm workers. The

a number Of the suggested 111elation revisions WILL WAINfor it. Once the regulatf, re Publiched, UADA mat.probably ba, in. the market fa,- a feesibie annttelricatiun procedure:

These papers wore drawn up on the basis tO-fornation received from you and many others oenbernnsthe problems farm worker* have in using the Food ;tekrProgram as currently administered, Consider these IP.°,,yepere as beginning drafts of final preiposele'whial UI.

be made to USDA: Because these were writterreth *limited amount of information, we Unsaid appreciate wyiAgretkone, or3 ties amts, atlas:tient ail. which pit

ao Clint they will in the end edi aretell reffefirsituation of farm. workers and Wou.de it adapted,

r"

89

PAW 2.

provide thobest possible rood Stamp Program from thefarm workers point of view. Please Consider thesepropoeals.ficm whatever angle you wish: the need for

., organizing tools or legal tools, problems /administrativered taps and logistics, or whatever:';

We would alio ask that-you.seek suggestions frOmother organizations or individuals who have knowledgeof the farm worker's-problem...with the rood Stamp Pro-gram. Because it is important to make our rocommenda-tions as quickly as:possible to USDA, it would be help-ful if you could riturn your comments to the ColumbiaCenter within a week. We will then revise-our proposals ,

and send you a copy. -.

Thanks for the help.o

Bread. and Justica,

.

Wat,(6 0,e44ao.,

Kathy Landrey

1

leMeMell

0

. t0 aiy.. 0

AMENDED FOOD STAMP ACT* (underlined portionsindicate the recentamendments)

11.

Declaration of Policy

Sec. 2. It is hereby declared to be thepolicy.of Congress,in order to promtAe the general. welfare, that the Nation's.abundanoo of food should be.utilized cooperatively by theStates, the Federal Government, locaLgovernmental units,and other a encies to safegUatd the health and well-being,

'of the Nat on's population and raise levels of nutrition"among low-income households. The Congress

.that the limited food urchasin ower of low-income house-., SlaaciritEKETtes to hunger and malnutr tion among members

TOITICEE6UFEE5Tas. TheCongress further finds that in-creased utilizailZn of food in establishing and maintainingadequate national levels of nutrition will promote/'the dis-tribution in a beneficial manner of our agricultural abun-dances and will strengthen our agricultural economy, aswell as result in more orderly marketing and distributionof food. To alleviate such hunaer and malnutrition, a foodstem ro ram 1.s herein Authorized whIch will Permit: low-ncome, ouseholdF:12_purchase a nuts to aaiCate-aret

.1hromh normal channafF7ZYVrade. 17 U S, s20111

DEFINXTIONS

Sec. 3. As used in this Act --

(a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture.

(b) The term "feed" means any°foed or food product forhuman consumption except alcholi beverages, tobacco, thosefoods which are identified .on the package as being imported,

- and meat and meat products which are imported.

(c) The term "coupon" means any coupon, stamp, or type ofcertificate issued pursuant to the provisions of this Act.(d) The term 'coupon allotment." means the total value ofcoupons to be issued to a household during each month orother time period.

*The prearXale states: AN ACT -- to strengthen the agri-cultural connemy to help to achieve a fuller and more o

effective use of food abundansps: to provide for impreed3eve/S Of nutrition among loti-isucoste hoWleholeis.through.a cooperative Federal-State program of food assistance'to be operates-through Aatmal, channels of trade; and forother- purpcaos.

92'

1

91

j!!17-1 itfArl.piFIff.,6!

402,Thc-term "honsehold"shallimpAwroup of relatedindOiduaTEDIriCludinglsgalaadopted Children andBall assigned foster children) or. non-related- in-dividuals over age 60 who are not residents oritriri-etitution or boarding house, but are living as one eco-nomicunit shaylngcemmon:cookin facilities and- for.whom food is customarily_purch%sed in common. .Theterm "household".-..shall also mean (1) a single individualliving alone wile, has cookinge-sand,whoesand prenuresfood for horn ;Consumption; or (2) anelderly person who meets the re uirements of-section10(h) of this Act.

(f) The term "retail food store" means an establishment,including a recognized department thereof, or .a Nouse-to7.home trade !oute which sells food tohouseholds for home

..consumption. /t shall also maahapplitiCaI subdivisionor apEivete nonprofit organization that meets the re-Ffrements of section 10(h) of this Act.

.(g) The term "wholesale food .concern" means an estab-lishment which -sells food .to retaEl-food stores for re-sale to households.

(II) The term "State agency" means the agency of the Stategovernment which has responsibility for the administrationof the federally aided public atsistanceprograms.

(i) The term "bank" means member or nonmember banks ofthe Federal Reserve System.

(j) The term "State" means the fifty States and theDistrict of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the VirginIslands of the-United States.

(k)The term "food stamp program" means any program pro-mulgatedpursuant to tha provisions of this Act.

IlfThe,term_"elderly_pgreon"-shall mean a nerson six1year _cif OrOver who is not a resident off.__ an institutionor boay:ang house, and who is living alone,.or with _spouse,whethbr or not he his tool. ing facilities in his_home*.

(m) The termH"authoriy.atipn to putchasecard"_meanianydoctiVntid WThegEW6avency t an .

hl7W6bilws-. tacoyalue of the common all4mentt

suchdbc 0 and the amoult,tpb.?...paidckhousefspAq?di iWc h a ":4.7d 2 ffr

9 ,?

3.

92

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

Sec. 4 (a) The Secretary is authorized to formulate andAdminister a food stamp program under which, at there-quest of the State agency, eligible households withinthe State shall be provided with an oppottunity to obtaina nuLty322131,adetioquate diet through 'the issuance tothem of a coupon allotment which,shalI have a greatermonetary value than thecta_laretdbeplilforsadh allot-mall by eligible households. The coupons so received bysuch househdfnFffEll be used only to purchase food frontretail food stores which have been approved for paticipatibnin the food stamp program. Coupons issued and used asprovided in this Act shall be redeemable at face valueby the Secretary through the facilities of the Treasuryof the United States.

(b) In areas where the food.stamc nrogram is_in_eppration,there shall be no dittribution offederallV deflated foodsto households under the authority of any other law exceptthan distribution thereunder may be made:- (1) durinatemporartsperacncy situations when the.Socretary deter-

.,mines that commercial channels of food distribution have,

been disTinoted; (2) for such period of tine as the,Sec-rotary-determines necessary, to effect an orderly transi-tion in an area in which the distributiost of federallydonated foods to households is beingreclaeed by a 'food

stamp firgliam; or (3) on recuest of the State eaencvlProvided, That the Secretary shall not aonrove' any ol'enestablished under this Act which Permits anm_houscholdto simultaneously_particicate in both the food step, pro-.ream and the distribution of. federally donated foods_under this clause 43). .

(c) The Secretary shallcissue such regulations not inwith this Act, as he deems necessary or

appropriate for, the effective and efficient administrationrof the food stamp program. (7 U.S.C. 52013)

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

Sec. 5. (a) Exce* for the temporary participation of house-holds that are viptims of a disaster as tromlded in sub-seciTop OTFiT741s sectiBT-participation irrihe foda-MaPPOsgraiii-dh7lifiknIMIted to those households whoseincome and Weller financial 'resources arc determined to be

ippertnIfitipajhrniftopurnutAt49M.1 Y 44510.4 .K.d.

(b) The Sccwetary, in consultation with the Aecn2tary or

9 4 p

iI

4. a

a

93

Health, Education, and Welfare, shall. establish unite,"form _national standards of11y T-..__lotneholdr, in thi food ,st.aMzsrogram and no planof.Rteratjpn State -arc shall be .

itp_Rroyed unless the' standardr, of elictibility meet thongestablished -b_y_the Secretary. The standards establirhed)2y. the SedretarK, at aininimum, ..571,0.132.scribe th?mounts' of household income and other financialresourceq,,including bo1:h irAfid and non figuid assetfa, Lobs used

househeld which_, in --diides a MOraiEr who has reached his einteenth birth-ifay_andc?ho is_ lairaf.-.K1 as a dependent: child for FederalIncorae to:;_nurposesby :a. taxpayer who is not a merithorof an -eligible libuseliold, shall _be inel_isible tp_paiti-cipate in any Jooi stamr)proaram establisheclpursurit tothis Kct during the:tax sucp _depenclency_ip claimed

_ _add i-or riot' of once year afta,V expiration of r,lichtax po ttieliegretar_xmay also establisktemporary,emergency standard:). of elierbility_Lyithou reoaFd toincome and other 'iinancial re6ource° , for hottr,eholclothat are -61; a diaacter which di r.;,rupted comerpialchannels of food cli-Aribution wehpn he d'eterrainos that,radii hollpeholds are in good temporar.y food assi,ritancei,lanel -that obi-n1 61-eihanneriT; 6f food eitsTri hill ion haveagain hecom3 availe.:hle to Meet the ter-6w raNv food needs

rilietc.606'i01161:dh : P ray deel at the Secretary, shalFri the :6f yherte 16:66, =Guam, and ,flie Varianeniablich:spc:cial st-a ndardc,' ov elleillU3 t-Land coupon

schednier, c:hich refleetthe averrap_p_ez,._panita.and -cost of ohs,ainina a nutritionally ecleauate.

ilia Air Iilfarteriac6 arid the rebneCf.iTve territories ;ii-xceRt.7_ that in no ,,e'vent ohali the of arc& eljrncri

i Cy or coupon Olotr.?nt schedtiles_so used exceeei_thonein _the fifty fft es.

(c) Notwiht h°tantli net any other provi sion° of law, theSeer_.per& an n e l t t i l o in the unit orm n ad. oriTal stairelards,or i sitho 66t rait- (h)t)1. Ilis s ronm provision-that each state agency_ shallfirOVI C hob °elf61 et - u`AI_.1 Kelt- beT.efiFliie- for pto is -n711'62: Aet-Tr "nri le 7,7_i) ed

&i'craht(-re7 liefed e n ei7,1xtlY-fd)the 1,-r; -or other i7:71,J)-6ruflol the hi36retiOlirtATOh-a7ire

ketrtFalibi. ft-Y-61-7-67-ir76- Frib e n -ChiJ n or nbraTKi'ertiaireir hone irete student° in anT aporeetiliedb-eficO) of. train rig procf , orpc rs erap1-61.,c1 andiki3 WiT-t.t -1 30 icen.,:rb ei In) f.iti isto -roi'ttE.1- J 6? 50 -111jitt b:11Cok, bth-hr utprOpr4lotaf; t ez ridtrert- Off-Zee I" the7 Se.e;:e.t.ary ,6" (ii) has 16 Alp i clyii-rift **It-it net desz thigh (7) Lli e19.11a.CliTO1 to a minimum Wes.ao_j(i i) the i*de-fil-alihImIA-Witie., (4:7.4) theAppl wale este" Weir on thp.,

11.201 0 - 71 -795

44.94

Federal Government_authorlmajhyexisting law toestablish such remilaaons, or 6.41-$1.40Per fiburIt there is no applicable.wage as described in (i).

((iii) above. Eefusalto work at a plantor siVraiii3FeCto a strike cji 111166kourfor the-duraffeliefirl-arke-6i-I6ckout shall not 64

SiO14:411ETIFFed-to e a refusal to acceptavAgiii:=1-1-UNS.C.

. .

tSSUANCE AND USE OF COUP=

Sec. 'Z. (a) Coupopb shall be printed in such denominations as may be determined to be necessary,and shall be issued only to households which havebeen duly certified as eligible to participate in theood stamp program.

(b) Coupons issued to eligible households shall.be usedby them only to .purchase food in retail food storeswhich have been approved for participation in the foodstamp program at prices prevailing in .such'stores:Provided, That nothingin this Act shall be construedas author zing the Secretary to,specify the prices atwhich food may be sold by wholessle,food concerns orretail food stores.

(e) Coupons issued to eligible households shall besimIlle in design and shall include only such words orillustrations as are required to explain their purposeand define their denomination. The name' of any publicofficial shall not appear on such coupons. (7 U.S.C.s2o.15)

off

VALtfl OF THE COUPON AUOTNENT AND CHARGES TO TDB MADE

Sec. 7. (a) the face valueof the, coupon allotment whichState agene5es shell be authorized to issue to pnvhouseholds certified as eligible to nartie5na''ein the fendEtian:i:p1(iiicm 5ha11 po in such mount 66-1,40 Seprete-de-terpfriti- he the ebri-tciTZifet,aaluqtell ennuallv to_rof lect chances in the orir!ene r f foOd pc,i1 5 niioti by tt e o'. LeJTiOr_ Sta Lis Son

in the bei-,iartm2nt oi

96

6

.b5

*,..

. :Its

(b) NotwithAianding any other -provision of raw, house-bolds. shall be charged for the cotton' allotment .issuedto them,and the amount of such charge shall-represent

, *a reason'ableinVestment on'thepart of the household,but in ndevent (2) more than 30 per centum of the house-hold's income:. -Provided, Thatcou on -allotments. maybe issued without charge to house oless than $30, per month for a-fa ily'of-four Un4le

If lds with income of

standards'of Iligibility prescribed by the Secretary;. Provided furtler, That the Secretar shalliftoviae a .reasonable oppor.tunity for anv,eligible:houSehoid tcelect. to be issued a coupon allofmentfhaVim a facevalue which'is less, thandthe face. value of- Tte coupon-allotment Authorized to be issued.to them under sumsection (a), of-this-sectioh, The charge to be-paidby eligible- households electing to%exercise the option ,

set,forth in this'AbsectiOn shall be an amount whichbears the same ratio-to-the amount which would havebeen charged under subsection -.(bY of this section as

-the face value of the coupon allotment actually issued,,vto them bears to the face value of the coupon allot-ment that would have been issud'to them under sub-section_ (a) of this- section. w-.

. ,. .

-,

(c) The value ofjthe-coupon allotment provided to. any

eligibge.houSeAoldwhich is in.excess of the amount. . charged such hbuseholds for such allotment shall not be

considered to.be income or-resources for any purpose- undec'any Federal -or State,rawsincluding, bvt not. limitedotoo laws relating to taxation, welfare, andpublic assistance programs. 't - . C.

(d) FundS' deriVed from the charges made for the coupon

,.

.

. -allotment,shall be promptly apbsited in a manner pres-cribed in the-regulations issued pursuant to this Act,in a separate account maintained in the qTreasurys of the

.:

United StateS for such purposes. Such deRosita shall.-be available, without 'limitat'ion to fiscal years, for

- : -the redemption of. c?upons. [7- U.S.C. S2016]

/

APPROVAL OF1RETAIL'\FOOD SPORES AND.WHOLESALE FOOD CONCERNS

See.' 8. (a). Regulations issued pursuant to this Act phailprovide for the submission of applications for approvalby retail food stores and wholesale food concerns which.desire to,be authorized tb accept and.redeem coupens under

. the food stamp program and for the approval of those.applicants whose participation will effectuate the put: -.potes of the food stamp PrOgram.'-In;_detbrmining thequalifications of applicarrts there; `shall be considenedamong such other factors as may to appropriate,thefollowingo

. . (1)' the nature and extent of theretail or wholesale

- t

g 970

7.. - .

.fooll business condUcted*by the applicant; C4 .theVcalume. ofcoupon VuAiness which may reasonably.beexpected to be conducted by the applicantretail-food store or:wholesale food concern; and 13) the'business integrity and reputation of the applicant.Approval of an apglicanthall becvidenced by theissuance to such applicant of a non-transferable!.

,

certificate"Ofhapproyal..

. .

.(h) Regulations issued pursuant to thislot shallrequire an .applicant retail food store or wholesalefood concern to submit formation which will permita.determihation to be made as to whether'such appli- 4`cant` qualifies, or cOnti?Ma- to qualify, for approvalunder the provisions of thik.Actor the regulationsissued pdrsuaht to this.Abt. Regulations isstedpursuant tthisAct shall aovide for safeguardswhich restrict, the use or discloS,ure of informationobtained Undei-6the authority granted by the sub-section to purpose directly, connected tithadministration and enforcement of the,provisiane of thisAct or" the regulations issued .pursuant to,this-Act.

r(c)(c) Any retail food store or:wholtsale.food concernAlia has upon application to receive approvalo participate in the food stamp program may obtain a

bearing on suctOorefusal as provided. in section 13 ofthis Act. (7 U.S.C. §2017] ' .

REDEMPTION OF COUPONS. .

Sec. 9. Regulations-issued'pursuant to this:Act shallprovide far the.redemPeionf coupons accepted by re-tail food store through apiroved wholesale-food-con=cerns or through banks, with the cooperatio of the

' Treasury Department. (7 U.S.a. 12018).'

*ADMINISTRATION

Sed. 10'. (a) All pkacticab le efforts shall bp made inthe administration of the food stamp'program to insurethat paridipants. use their increased'foodpurckasing.Power'to obtain-those staple foods mostneaded in theiriets, and pEttticulary- to enoourage,the continued usef those in abundantorurplus supply so as not 'to

reducefIc total consuMftion of surplus commoditicswhich have been made available thrdugh direct distr37.bvti 4on. "In,, mdition,to such steps es' ay:be-tal:an ad

iMinisCratively, the vOlulitary'cooperation of existingFederal,'Stata, loCpl, or.priyato agancios which carry

0

9.8

( 1.--k

97

out infOrmational ajid educational progSamsforSumers shalfibe..enlidted.

(b) The State-agenty of each participating State shall,;assume responsibility for the 'certification of appli-,^cant households and for the issuance /Of coupons: Pro-Videdi. That the State agencypay, subject to State ,

.law, delegate its responsibility in connection with'the issuance of couPons to another/agency of the "Stategovernment,. There. sh 1 be kept,such records as may_be necessary. to ascert in wheth k the program is beingcondUcted'in compliance.with t e,provisiops of this

' Act-and the tognlatiOns issute pursuant:to4his Act.;Such records shall be availsat any reasonable:-time andsuch petiod of time not imay be spedified in the r

(c) Any household whieand which makes app_i

la for inspeqtion and audithall be preserved forexcgss-of thtee-years,,,as

gufations.

J.s. receiving_ public assistanceation for .the benefits of this

Act shall be 9ertifiled for eligibility solely byexecution Of an aff davit, in such form as the Secretary_may prescribe, b e member of such houSehold making_application. Cer ification.of a bousohold as. eligiblein piny ppg.itical subdivision shall, in the event ofremoval of such household to another political sub-divition.-in which the food Startle otograh is operating,remain valid for participation in the loodstemppro-,,gram for a period. of sixty (Ws from the' date. of suchremova'. In the certiation of applipant householdsfor ifie.foop stamp progr'.m there shall be no discrim-ination against any household by reason of race, -4

religious creed, national originor political beliefs.

(d) Participating States or patticipating politicalSubdivisions thereof shall not decrease welfare grantsor other 'similar aid extended to any person or ersons,as a consequence of such-person's or person's artici--4pation in benefits made available under the pr visionsof this Act or the regulations issued pursuant to thisAct.

(e) iklie.gltate agency Of each State desiring to participatein the food stamp program shall; submit for approva]i aplan of operation specifying,the manner in which suchprogram will be conducted within:the State, the politicalsubdivisions within-the St'aere in which the State desires :

to conduct the program, andhe effectj:ve dateS of.partiapation bp` each such' political subdivision.addition, such plan'ofoporation shall provide; among'sueh'ether provisions as may by r6gaations be required,.the felIowing: (1) the s'-iocif),V stendadsbto be usedv

4

4.1.%9-9

.

p

4or

iddetermining the eTigibilitY of applicant households;(.2) that the,State agendy shall undertake the cert4-

ifioaton of applicant households in accordance with,the general procedures and personnel standards used by.'them in the certification. of applicants for benefits, ,

*

'

under the federally aided public assistance programiC '

(3) safeguards which restrict the use or disclosure .

'of information obtained from applicaqt households' to-persona directly connected with-the 4dminiseration orenforcement of the prOvisioris of this Act or the re-gulations issued pursua4t to this Act; (4) for the -submission of such repofts anaotheilinformajon asfrom time to-time. may be required; (5) that the Stateagency shall undertake effective aCtioxic_ includingthe use of,serVices provided- by other federally fundedAgenees and organizations, to inform low-income house-holds1concerninLthe availability and benefits of the-food tamp program and insure the ParticiI:a-ion ofeligible households; and (6) for the granting of a filir

. 'heaang and a prompt determination thereafter to any 0household,aqqrieved bV the action 'of a'State_Agenct

. uneleram_aovision of its plan of-operfition as itaffects the rifiiticipation. of such household in thefood stamp pxogyam. The State agency shall, notwithrstendipq_anyother pro 'Sion of law, institute pro-

c'Eediriee unaer. 17FEEE any laTeW6I-dapi-:gaiaffrig inTEhelood,stitmo program shall. be entitled, if it sb elects,tb have the chargers,. if any, for its coupon allotment.a,deducted from any_grant br. baympnt such house old _may_be 0W:1-Fled to receive under any federally aided publicassistance_program and have ies coupon allotment dis7tributato it with such grant or_payment. In *

approving the participation of the iubdiVisions re-quested by each State filL its plan of operation,. theSecretary shall proyidLfor an equitable and orderlyexpansion among the several States in accordance withtheir relative need and readiness to meet their re-quested effective dates of participa4on.

,

4,f5 If the'Secretary dqtermines that in the administrationof the program there is a failure by a State agency to

. comply substantially with the provisions of this Act,orl4ith-Ehe:regulations issued pursuant to this-Act,'orS!With the- State plan of Orlbragion, he shelr'imform1-such'State agency ofsuchfailure and.shall allow theState Agency a reasonable period cif time tor, thecorrection of such failure. Upon'the expiration of suchperiod, the Secretary shall diroCt that there be no,

Mb

1 0 0

99 .-**

. further issurance of coupons in the political sub-;;.4iv1sions where such failure has occurred until

t.ime as satisfactory corrective,dction has beenaken.

(g) If the Secretarydeterminethat there'has been'gross negligence or fraud on the part of the Stateagency inr the cOrtifi:catio4-of applicant households,the State shA,11 upon Kequest of the Secretary de-positinto theeparafe account Authorrzedby section'7 of this Act,..q.sum equalto the amount by which thevalue Of any'Cratiperis issued. as a result of such,- IN.

negligOnce orjraud exceeds the amount that Was chargedfor such coupons under section 7(b) of this Act.

, 4

(h)..Subject to such terms and condition's-as may be.p.E.26-1berby the lOcretaryin the reguraionsissuedpursuant to -this Act, members. of an eligible 'house,- --

hold who are sixty years of 'acre or over or -in elderlyperson anclhis spouse may use counons issued to themto purchase meals prepAred_for andsleliyered to tliemiyLIOlitIcAl'sUbdiVision Or by a Rrivate sonvpre7fA.organization which: (1) is hot recciyinTfederala__(fasted foods from the United - States DenartMent.ofAgriiculture fdr use _i_atlpieep...artition of such meals;1215:775perated in a.manneT consistentmith the nur-Rp.ses of this Act; and (3) is recognized as a tax,'ftempt oEgAnization by the Internal Revenue Service:

-y, WEVided, That household meMbersor elderly oersonsTo whom meals'are delivered are housebound, feeble., 'PETE:ally handicapped, Or otherwiseAisabled., to .theextent that thu- are una5le to adguAtely_prenare allof their' meals. Meals served Pursuant to this sub-section shall be deeMod-Nfoodv7for the.psposes pfthisAct. 177.1s.a. S42019]

I

. ..DISQUALIFICATION OF 'RETAIL- FOOD STORES AMY HOLESAI,EFOOD- CONCERNS .. .

'Sec. 11. .Anyapproved retail-food store of wholesalefood concern may be disqualified from further partiCipationin the food stamp program on a finding, made as specifiedin the regulatiems, that such store or concern hasviolafed F.ny of the provisions of this Act,,or.of theregu)a.ticins issued pursuent to thin Act4 Such dis-qualification nhal14,e for such p6rica 01 tiMn an maqbe'determined,in acepraancerwith regulations-i.tisved

101

-pursuant to this Act. This action of-disqtalificationshall be Subject to review ag provided.in, section'13 of this Act. (7 U.S.O. 52020]

' DETERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS

r

Sec. l2 The Secretary'Shall have the' power to d eterininethe amount of and settle and adjust.any claim.and to.compromise or deny all or part of any such claim orclaims arising under the provisions of this ACt orthe regdlations issued pursuant to this Act.- (7 U.S.C.W21): i

.-ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

Sec. 13. -Whenever

(a) An applidatiOn of a retail food store or 1.7:11olesalefood,eCncern tq participate in the-food stamp programis denied, *

,

A6),a retail food store or a wholesale foOd concern ipdisqualified under'the provisions of seetiOn il ofthii; Act, or

.(c) All or part of. any claim of a retail, food store orwhole:4e food concern is denied finder the provisionsf.of section 12 of this Act, notice of such administrativeAction shall be issued to the retail food store or whole-sale food concern involved. Such not ace shall be de-livered by certified mail or personal service. If suchstore or concern is agrfrieved by such acelion., it may,in accordance with regulations promulgated uncle:; thisAct,. within ten daystof the date of delivbry of suchnotice, file a written request for an opportunity tosubilit infermation in support of its position to suchperson or perdons as the regulations may designate.If such a request is not pade,or if such,store or'con-cern fails to submit information in support of itsposition after filing a request, the administrative.determination shall, be final. If such a request ismade by such store or concern, such info cation as maybe submitted by the store or . concern, as tell an suchother infc,maticn as way be avaPible, cliv11 bc 1'uv5ewd Uy the, pereon or pc!rsons 0.,,c;itplatod, vhosubject to the ricpt or judicz.li-.1 rev Acv 11:Yviria.%*rprovided, make a determination which shall be final

102

.

,and- which shall, take effect fifteen clays after thedate of iiirle delivery of service of such final notice

N\ of determination. Ift-the Store or concern feels .

aggrieved by such final determination he may obtainjudicial review thereof byy filing a complaint againstthe United Stater in the United Statesdidtrict....court.for the district in which. he resides or it en-.gaged in business, or in any court of -retord of theState having competent jurisdiction., within thirtydays after the date bAdelivery or service -of the \final noticeof determination Upon him, requestig_the court to 'set adicle such detgrmination. no copyof the summoils and complaint requi?ed'to bo deliverecti, Pt. to the official, or agency 4-tose orclor is beingattacked shall be sent to the Secretory or such per-son or persons as he may clIsigAte to receive serviceof process. The suit in the United 4,1totes districtcou-rt or State court shall, be a trial de nave bythe court in N,rhich'thei court shall deterriiine the,validity of the 9uestioneci acIrlinidtrati,ve notion inissue. If the spurt determines that .such adminis-trative action is invalid it shall enter-such .j.nclg.-ment or order. ad it determines. is.in accordance withthe late and the evtdcnee. thc.pendenCY ofsucii, judicial review, or any appeal therefrom, theadministrative- action unclr review shall be and remainin full force and effect, unless an application tothe court on not less -'than ten -clays' notice, and .after

- hearing thereon and a showing of irreparable injury,'the court, temporarily stays such administrative action'r,

'pending disposition of such trial or appeal.. U.S.C.' .0S 2022] I ,

$ VIQI.A47(:)NS AND EI\WORC11141;;NTt.Sec. 14. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions ofthis.Act, the Secretary may prev.i.cle for,the purcha'se,issuance or .presentment for redemption of coupons-a;Such portion or persons, -and at such times and. in suchmanner, as hb deems; necessary, or appropriate to. proteCtthe' interests .f the United States or to insure en- '/4,-forcetv.snt of the proVisions of t-his Act or the krel- .90ot:ions issued pursuant to this Act.

(h) hoever,kno;eingly uses, transf?rs, acqutres, alters,or possesses coupendlibr authorizatien to purchase-,-.- c

103

102

13:

in anx manner not authorized by this Act or the;regulat/ons issued pursuant to this Act shall, ifsuch coupons or authorization to ourchase cards areof the value of $100 or more,, be guiltt'of_a felonyand shall, upor conviction theregf; bevfined not morethan $1000 or imprisoned for not'more than fiveyears or both, or, if such coup ns or authorization topurchase cards are of a value o less than $100, .

shall be guilty of a misdemean and shall, upon con-viction thereof, be fined no ore than $5,000 orimprisoned for not more-than one year,- Cr bath.

.

(c) Whoever presents, or causes to be presented,coupons for payment or redemption of the value of .

$100 or more, knowing the same to have been received,transferredo,or used in any manner in violation oflhe proVaionsthis Act or%the regulations issued pursuant to thisnot ahall be guilty of a felony and shall, upon con,-Wictiari thereof, be fined n t more than $10,000 orimprisoned for not more an five years or both, or,if such coupons are of e Value less than $100, shallbe guilty of a misdemeanor and shall,' upon convictionthereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned ..

for not more than one year, or both. ,

(d) Coupons isaued pursTant to this Act shall be deemedto be .obligationa of the United States within themeaning of title 18, United States Code, section 8.

(e) No person shall 'be charged with a violation ofthis or Elax ofEWF Act, or of anregulation'Mued tnderthis, or. any other Act, or oit_anv State clan of opera -

. tion on the basis of ply statements_ or information cop--al:Ned in an affidavit filed pursuafiti to section_10(c)OTIiiiq excAct,--ept for fraud. (7 U.S.C. 5202.3)

COOPERATION WITH STATE mmciiSec. 15 (a) Each State shall be responsible for.-Z,tnencing,from funds available to the State or pokitical sub-division thereof, the costs of carrying out the adminis-trative responsibilities assigned toit under provis,ionsof this Act. Exeept an provided for in SubisectiOn fb)tl of this section such costs nfidll include, but shall riotte'limited to, tile certification of hduseholds; theacceptance, storage, and protection of coupon: aftertheir delivery tab receiving points within thb Statmi;

1 0 4

-4

103

and the issuance Hof such coupons to eligible house-holds and the control and accounting therefor.

(b) The Secretar is authorized to pav to each State_agency an amount equal to 62 1/2 per century of the-sum 5f (1) the dire_carr, travel and travel-re-lated cost (includingbisaatits as arenormal' _.aalpersonnel, includim_the immediateauperxisort of suchRerponnel, for such time'as they_are emnleyed iiiakinc the action xeguired under theprovisions of subsection 10(0(5) of this Act and inmaking certification determinations for householdsother than those wiTEITTEEHnst sol2IyLRILIsckpleriESof wAlfare assistance; (2) the direct salag., travel,and travel-related costs (includinc! such fringseFgEZTREF07a-ie Sbrmally_pgra) eper-soWNYTIor:.suchtime as they are employed asThearina_pt tinderndersection 10(e) of the Act. (7 2024)

APPROPRIATIONS-, .

Sec. 16 (a) To carry out the proVisions of this Act,there is hereby authorized to be appropriated not inexcess of $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Jude30, 1965; not-in excess of $100400,000 for the fiscalyea); ending nine 30 1966; and not in excess of$200,000,000 for the 'seal year ending-June,30, 1967;NOnot in excess of $200,0 ,000 for the fiscal yearending June 30, 1968; not excess of $315,000,000fox the fiscaI year ending June 30, 1969; not in excessof $340,000,000 for the fiscal year, ending June 30,1970;not in excess of $1,750,000,0'00 for.thefidealye'arending June'30, 197f; for the 11.1Learo ending:June38, 1972-iiild June 30, 1973 such riUMG asille:Concrosh Ma

4.___----

ppruriate. Such portion 61 any such appropriata61 asmay beYeTIVTred to pay_for the value of thecoupon allot-pants issued to eligible households which is in,excesskof the charges paid by such households for such allot-ments_ shall be transferred to and made a part of theseparate account created under section 7(d) of this Act.This Act shall be carried out only with funds appro-priated from the general fund of the Treasury .for that.specific purpose,and in no event shall it be carried outwith fun derived from permanent appropriations. Onor before January 20 of each-year, the Secretary shallsubmit fo Congress a report setting forth operatioripunder this Act during the preceding calendar year dhdproActing needs for the ensiling. calendar Tear.

. :

105

104

15.

(b) In any fiscal year,. the Secretary shall limitthe value of those coupops issued which is in excessof the value of cou*ons for which households arccharged, to an amount which is not in excess of theportion of the appropriation for such fiscal yearwhich is transferred to the separate account under

'the provisions,of subsection (a) of this. section. Ifin any fiscal Year the Secretary finds that the re-quirements of participating States will exceed thelimitation set forth herein, the Secretary shalldirect State agencies to reduce the amount of suchcoupons to be issued to participating households to the.extent necessary to comply with the provisions ofthis subsection.

(c) If the Secretary determines that any of the fundsin the separate account created under section 7(d) .

of this Act are no longer required to carry out theprovisions of this Act, such portion .of such fundsshall be paid into the miscellaneous receipts of theTreasury'.

(d) Amounts expended under the authority of this Actshall not be considered amounts e:tpended for the,pur-pose of carrying out the agricultural price-supportprogram and appropriations for the purposes of this Actshall be considered,, for the purposes of budget pre-sentations, to relate to the functions of thp Governmentconcerned with welfare. [7 U.S.C. _S2025)

4 al

1. 106'

105

*,RECOMMENDATION FOR REQUIREMENTS

I. Definition Of Income

A. Income should be defined as'net.income (minus

mandatory .deductions).

B. A special provisio4 shoUld be mado fop seasonal

wor4s (perhaps could be worded to include other

groups) to driduct from income expenpealhoesaary

to prodUce intone (e.g. travel, purchasing-eopipment).

C. Earned income of children under 18' should7not

be counted ai part of the households income.

D. Rest of income definition could parallel hat

used in Na onal School iunCh Registration.,,

'Basis: A. The previous Food Stamp requirements say`

that the staffs shall establish income standards0

which "shall includemaximum indome

consistent with income standards used by tfii:

state agency in administration of.ite f.deraJly

'aided public assistance programs." (271.1, f)

Most states use net income in determining eligibility

for pdblic assistance. -Furthermore,-in the USDA.

instructions to state agencies on 'Food Stamp Program

Procedures Cer certification of Households Receiving

Farm Income, not income ("total amount of earnings,0 4 -

less mandatory deductions ") is included as the

.basisi for determining eligibility. (V,,B, 1.)

1.07

1

-8. This instrpction ftirther indicates

that for fammoperators, the cost of

moducing incalme is to be deducted from

net income. Seasonal worker's expensed

for prOducing income, such as travel&

would seem to be a parallel situations

C. Deduction of Children's income is

allowable 4der current regulations and

a number of state plans currently in-

clude this provision. Also, a number

of states discount the income of/chil-i

dren in determining welfare grants.'

Concerning all these provisions on definition of income,

the Act .as amended gives the Secretary the authtprity to

include them. (See 5b) In requiring the Secretary to/

"eitablith uniform national standafds of eligibility"

the amend ments:make it nicessar,foi him to determine

the allowable deductions and make them a Mandatory part

of the states'' p lans. National Income guidelines, will

not accomplish their purpose of uniformity otherwise.

Problem: A: Migrants travel because there is no.

longer work at their current locationL.,,,...."

travel is an unavoidablweiipense in order

to maintain employment. B. Gross income does

o

.t.

.C>

I

; `--not reflect 'the income migrants

have to olive on Deductioks !niany.of =

them. large an4 in,eirkyi. are Made before- :themilppab everrees his money. C.

- 01°' a.

" .Vhare is ib guarantee that money.,4-- a . g.make- goes. towards -the .fdailr's

expenses;. - ..I.,..pL IDetinitibn of resources ,-.Re*ireients ,

.

include as part of household's resoaces those re--

sources whiCh are essential to the eamily's means of,supportii, For,peekonal workers thiS would` mean atito-

'11

ntbbiztes and savings accuMulateddhring the -best. months

''of the agricultural season.

According to' the amendmeltSfithe Se cretaily

can determine.national standards for thepossession of Sesbueces as a criteria forFood Stamp eligibility.. . Secre,taiy4ofiAgricul-

ture has the authority to "prescribe jtheamounts of household income and other financial

resources including -both liquid and non-..

liquid assets, to be used ,a4 criteria of(See 5,b) . FAP included a

similar provision to the one suggested abbvee"In.determinag the resources of a familythere shall be eXcluded other property

which, as 'determined 411 accordancewith

and sUbject tdlimitaVons in regulation,s,

of the Secretary; is do essenti41 to the',

family's means,of self-support as to

warrant(itsiexclusion."

Problem: Seasonal woricers may accumulate savings04

dpring some months which are then used to

phrry them through the months were 'there is

little agricultural work If annual income

everaqe were, used uniformly' to determine the

of seasonal fardi.workers, the

prdblem of being ineligible some months be-.

j cause ofeavings might be eliminate0. However,

this provision should still be included since

anhualCertification may be left optional or

not usefil.-

41

Cars are especially necessary for farm worker

Who migate to follow,the crop seasons. Having.

7.

wheels may give the migrant some.frbedom from.

depending on crew leaders for transportation., ...

Stiatisttcs indicate that farm workers not

working under a crew leltder,tend tO'return

home with more money. Cars also allow the

migrant mobility4in a given area which may help

him escape the monopoly of farmers or local

.

merchants and allow him to take advant4le4

of local social services such as health .

clinics.

0'

III. FrequenaNfissuing coupons - Requirements tom

say that'state agencies must require that all "rood

Stamp project areas have a provision for a monthly,

semimonthly, and weekly schedule of coupon issuance.

Basis.: Amendments have not changed the law in regards

to frequency of distributing coupons. current

Food Stamp requirements state that "state

agencies are responsille for insuring that

eligible households are positively offered

the frOquency of coupon issuance that is -test

geared to,the frequency of their receipt of

income: Provided, however, that at .a minimum,

all project areas shall make provision for a

monthly and semimonthly,schedule of issuance."

This minimum does not disallow weekly issuance,.

but apparently because the minimum is bimonthly,

local agencies have not offered weekly Oquance,

where such a schedule would be the "best °

geared to the frequenCy of theik receip of in-

come." A weekly minimum in 'the requirements

would ensure that issuance fit better With in7

receipt patterns for those who getpaid. .

'Probity: Seasonal workers generally,receive weekly

wages; a weekly coupon issuance would, there-4

fore,.be more suitable for thet. There have

been problems Miti farmworkers being Unable

to keep sufficient cash to ply bimonthly.

This problem would not be alleviated by the

new amendment .which ,allows the recipient tO

pay less than the previously required amount.

.since there.is a parallel cut in free stamps.

.Farm workers would then not.receive the full

benefits of the program.

IV. Definition of political subdivision - Requiremants,

should define this as a subdivision of any state.

Basis:1.

"Political subdivision",as spoken of in the

amenamenle,is not defined. In regards to its

use concerning moving (See 10,c) there is*.no

?ftention of political sadivision "of the same

state." Thus, the Secretary has the authority

to consider "political subdivision" the sub- .

divisions of any state. Since eligibility

ins tp be made "Uniform" throughout the country,

-a household eligible in one state, would. be

112

eligible in the next. ,Thus, a state

to Which a household:mOved would have no

'morf'basis for saying that lot didnt wart

to.contlOd henefit than would another

.1-political su ivisio 6f the household's

*iginaliatit 44

i 1 A

Seagonal.wOrkers Often'cross state lines''

- .

in following crop seasons. If "political

subdivision" didn't refer.to "of any state,"

workers would.haVe to await recertifi-.

cation be receiving benefits in the new

state. tA

v. Certification ,pending verification - Beguirements

to rewire thlt state'plans make a, provision

binding on all local Food Stamio: administrations

' for granting certification during the process

of verification.

Basis: This procedure is currently allowed for in a'

number of state plans. .It is also the policyA 0

of a Timber of state welfare departments to givs

money for food and rent, etc., before 'the appli-c A

cation for assistance has been processed. The

Act states that "State agencies shall undertakeA.

the certification of applicant hotseholds in

accordance with the geheral procedures and

3

r

personnel stanaaods used by th& in

the certification of applicaiitokor

benefits.". It would seem, however,

that the Seyretary has the authority to

make this a-uniform procedure on thev

basis of his authority to nestabplish

4. uniform nationAl)Standards of eligibility

for participation.....-" sincercerti-

fioation pending virificationl later

.to eligibility during that t !:Span.

Problem: Under the current situat where ,

immediate cer4fication is n4ytne policy,

migrant workers, who const snb change41,4

location, must reapply and a4i:t recertification

many times. This may be aI gthy pro-.

Att. 4'

cedurd each time. Ala ros0, the migrant

farm worker:may have a number of months ear

year in, which he was eligible for, but did

not receive Food Stamps; the reason being

solely administrative red tope. With the 60

day carry over time, much of this problem will

be remedied (particularly if the 60 days also

applies to crooking state lines). However,-

in moving a migrant may go from a commodities

areatowFoodStamparea. It might reason-

1 1 4

. ,

ti

113

%

,ably be expected that the 60 day carry.

over.will not apply for.this type of

change. Also, such a "certification

pending verification" 1,rocedure.0ould

eliminate delayed benefits for those

who are applying for the first tle.I

. a

:V/. Limitation on length of certification Procedure-

11equir4ents should include A 30..dav maXimum'for com

,

.. .

pletiqn, of certificatiOn procedure from date.of appli-

cation.' '

Basis: New amendmlints make no change in law regarding

this point. Old Food Stamp requirements (271.0,

b) imply that states actct on-aPPlicWOns with

!reasonable promptness." -Federal welfare policy

limits application processing to 30 days; in the`

Pood Stamp Act,4ietes are asked to administer

the Food Stamp program using similar procedures

as with federally funded public assEstance pro-.

grams. See 10, 6,2). This seems to indicate

-that the Secretary has the authority and duty

to require a 30 day limit.

Problem: There is great delay in progessing applications.

Nigrapts may moVe on before it is completed

and missc

out on benefits they are. eligible

for.

115

S.

VII. Verilication of eligibilityprocedures

Requirements should indicate more particularly what is

to be considered "adequate verification" of income./

Special prqcedures must be made for groups who do not

receiVe from their employers, any dOcumentatfon of

income received or who receive demOnstrably',inaccurate

documentation of wages. Sudh'special verification

procedures are intended tollachieVe an accurate, unbiased

estimation of income received. They should includll,! 0

4at a minimum, consultation, with existing organizatione

or groups representing the;applicalt's interests. Where;

there are no records Qf inddme on unbiased means of

estimation; the applicant*affidavit must be accepted

as sufficient verifidatioh;' Regulations should be

clear.

at this point that eligibility is to be based on

past (or present) income rate. Antidipated income is

not adequate verification.

Basis: New amendments don't touch on the process of

' 9

income 'verification for non-public assistance

households. Old requirements (271.4) say, that.

state agencies will "provide for Uate

documentation and verification of certification

information obtained from applicant households."

Because of the grea6 variety of systems currently

used to verify eligibility, the uniformity of

/

k

115

A

eligibility intended by the Act would

be jeopardized if the requirements weri

not more specific onithis point.

Problem Often no records are kept by farmers

of wages paid to individual farm workers.

Where they are, the records tend to be

inaccurate and a poor indiaatidn dt actual

money received. (Records may be before

deductions - legil,or EVAIA more

rarely do farm workers get pay slips.

Currently, a normal procedure when an'appli-,

cant has no record of past income is for

Ake certifier.to-chec4 with the farmer (e)'.

The farmer often believes it not to be in

his interest to #ssistWorkers to get food

stamps. Therefore, he may not provide

documentation to the Flood Stamp administrator

or may give documentation which is not ad ("

accurate indicator. Whatever documentation

or estimation cfAincome a farmer provides is

frequently taker:Cats more adequate than thefi

Sarm worker's word. Anothe;system of de-.

termining income ,which is sed where there are

no records is" iOrecaiting work for the next

month or two. A given rate of pay per day

is determined to be average; the number of

working days in the next month is figured;

117

4 .

4 g

12.

xis

weather foredattes may be bonsulted.

From this a predestion is made and

eligibility and priC41a.determined from

this. This:method of estimation is

often high1i inaccurate anA not,in favor

of the Worker. As a resulte*Oese various'

procedures tend to keep workers from_

getting stamps whets they are actually

eligible. Alio, they require the workers

to pay far.4 above what-theiractual income

would dictate

VIII. Use of erson other than head of househol to urchasestamps

At the time-of ceAification an applicant shoUld

be able to authorize other pbdple to purc ase

stamps for him. (these people must be n- ad

on,the Food Stamp eligibility card.) .

Basis: Thire is no indicaiion in the Act that' the

head of household, or only one person, must be

the one to purchase stamps. Current require

plants state that "the coupons may be used only

by the head o(the household or dther,persons

selected by him do purchase,.... (271.9,a).

If other persons can be selected to use the'

stamps, it seems reasonable to extend this

s

117

13.

tew

provision to cover purchase of.the

,

stamps.

'Problem: Because of the limited office hours

during which Food StaltiOs are available

(usually during the day) 'the head of the

household often has to loose a day's pay

in order to go in town and,purchase his

Food Stalips. Food Stamp offices often4

won't accept his wife or anyone else in his

place. Illness also presents difficulties

for purchasing stamps. This is an added

barrier for the migrants in attempting to

use the Food Stamp program.

IX. Annual Certification - Anctial certification (or re*

view of certification) is to be provided for in all

state plans for households which-are farm hoUseholds. This

provision'muet be linding on all local area* (i.e., all

local areas must offerthis option to farm households),

Farm households should be defined as its the USDA in-,

structions listed previously "Farm householdi' lre de-.

fined as as households receiving'a major portion of their

annual income from farm operation or faro vaployment,

and are further defined as households of farm operators,

or households of farm workers who have relatively steady

farm.emplOyment with one or more mpioyers.during farm

119

118

months, and/or a continuing source of credit.agitinstit,

future earnings. To qualify'as a 'farm household' a

househqld need not necessarily live on a farm." This

part of the requirements also needs to'specify that

earning of non-;!farm income does not allow Food' Stamp

administration to. retuTn to 'the normal pat em of

, certification for that person except upon his request.

Basis: Current 'requirements have a provision. allowing

for annual certification of farm workers:

"That an annual review schedule may be

submitted for households which derive their

income from.farming or employment on farms....".

(271.3,c) The intent is, apparently, that1

farm households have the opportunity to use

annual certification wbten their income is

best reflected this way. In, practice, however,

annual,certification is not used in participating

states. This seems to indicate the need fOr a

clearer definition of this regulation and

stronger language in order to insure that

eligible. families are not excluded due to

certification prdbedures. Furthermore, a.large

number of seasonal farm workers travel through

many different states in a year. If'all

120

- 119

15.

Q

4

t.

states were not required to allow for

annuareertification of farm workers,: these

traveling workers .would be de facto-ex-

eluded frqm the annual review schedule since

they would have to recertify in states not

ha4ing annual certification.

Problem: Seas6nal workers receive greatly varying.

wages-throughout thelrearfte in large

measure to,the crop seasons. Some months,

when good paying crops are ripe 'and the

.weather is good, a farm worker might makea'

high income which would make him ineligible

for hood Stamps. Other months of the yeir,

however, there may be little work. From

the best statistics available/seasonal farm-

workers tend-to make an average yearly income

well below the income level which would make

them eligible.forPood Stamps. Currently

this annualaveraging to determine eligibility,

although' technically alloWed by the Pood,Stamp

requirements, is done almost nowhere (if

anywhere). Thus, people who.have'a clear

claim to year-roUnd eligibility are excluded

from the program,(or at least, its full bene-

121a.

I

X.

fits) for a number' of months of!tha,year..-

..f..Prorated .Purcilase'Paymenis -.Requirements should

specify that for those households which are Certified'

Annually, purchase price of the stamps may be pro-

rated over the year, for each month, in accordance with

the yearly income %tern of the household. Apra-

rated schedule shall he the option of the annually

certified household.

Basis: .The Adt as amended does not prohibit such

a prorated pricaprodedurei The amendments

statetthat "the amount of such charge shall

represent a reasonable,inveatiment on the part

Of the houiehold.". (See 7,b) Given'the

great variation in income for many farm.

households, a "reasonable investment" "one

Month would likely be unreasonable for another.

Therefore, if such a hoUsehold were to take

advantage of annual certification, a pro-

rated purchase price schedule:would be

'necessary in. order to 'comply with. the pro-

vision "reasonable investment."

Problem: Seasonal Workers have.

In ,months Where there in, would tend to not have s

pay fol Food .S:timps if

schiPdtile were worked out

. aperage monthly earnings

. 011

XI.

could pay more.

very ireeigular income.

little mirk/ they

ficient cash to

average price

based on their

'other months, they

Non-necessity of regular participation - Ideally

requirements would include no prOvision,for regular

participation in order to continue ona's eligibility,.' .

'HOwe.ver,`.'if such a provisiOn !is ',continue it should er-

-. clude : O.): 'households 'who pass; through a commo 'es area ,.

,

/ ;,!r.1 :. ;

between two,,PoOd StaMp areas!,., and (2) ,bq

are. located where-Ith e- ?odd Stamp off ice .,/ii'ina cCees atilleVii,

.....'''.....*. . \. ' .e y- 0(distant,,and no -publiC. tr:ansportation).

,., '4,-,,.. t,,::

Basis: Is no apparents.basis for-the regular part:-

icipation regulation in the Act as amended

The intent of the act 'Is to "alleviate such

,hunger and malnutrition", and to "permit low'so f

income households' tO puichase a .nutritionally

adequate diat...." (See 2.) Refusing eligibilit

.because of' irregular participation- in:the Prcr'

gram may refuse participation to those 'who

123

122

hAve a desire and. need to use the Food

Stamp program in order to obtain a

"nutritionally adequate4diet." Refusing

participatidn because'of non-availability

or inaccessabiltY of the Food Stamp pro-

"ram does not seem to bethe intent'o;

'the Act nor the regulatitn'°271.4,b: Wtth-

out the above exceptions, however, it will

work' in this manner:,

P4._ 4 .

ANNUAL. CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR FARM WORKERHOUSEHOLDS TO USED .BY STATD.AGENCIES

.

I. ,General Explanation -- Under past systems of

certification'for the Food StaMp Program, seasonal

farm workers, although eligiblelhave all but, been ex-

cluded from participating in the benefits of the Food

Stamp Program. This set of instructions is intended

to set out a uniform annual certification p'iocedure

which will allow eligible seasonal workers full parti-.

cipation. To accomplish this, it is imperutive to re-

,,Cognize some of the impossibilities in accuracy and

precise verification of income 'previously required when

certifying seasonal farm workers.' It is also necessary

to realize the 'financial ,].imitations put on tailoring

-an accurate and precise certification procedure to the

seasonal-worker's situation.

With these considerations in mind, the following

certification procedure has been formulated and is to

be used by all participating political subdivisions.

II. Definition of Farm !corker households - Those0.1

households which receive a major portion oftheir annual

income from farm employment and rhcOlave relatively

steady- farm employment with one or more employers during

124

farming months (and/or a continuing source of credit

against future earnings). To qualify as a farm worker

household, A household need not necessarily live Op

a' farm -.

III. Certification Procedure

a. Determination of eligibility

1. Determine the households income last year

by tracing the worker's places of employ-

ment, rate of payeand days work d by month

as closely as possible (patterns)or esti-.

mate formulas may have to be worked out

ot)here).

a. Acceptable s rcedbf verification

1. worker'S records and affidavit

2. consultation with organizations

which represent the farm worker's

interests (if .any verification

beyond (1) is carried out, it

must include this.second source

of verification).1

3. Consultation with employers.

4. Consultation with .farm labor offices.'

b. Discussion - There is no feasible way to

document the earnings of farmlworkera

accurately fqr,the past month, let alone

3.

211.201 - 72 -

the past year. Records are very

rarely kept by'the worker or his

employer and when kept are apt to

be inaccurate. It is often for

this reason that farm workers have

not been able to use the Food Stamp

Program. The purpose here is to

institute a short hand method of

income estimation which will change

this'situation.without simultan:-

Atously allowing abuse of the Program

by ineligible households. The best,:

statistics available indicate that

the average farm worker's yearly

(/income, even when supplemen ed,by non-

farm work, is well heloW the national)

poverty level. Thus, a reasonable

estimate of past yearly income will

be sufficient to establish eligibility.

It should also be noted that although

farm workers' income varies over'the

years, statiitics show no pattern of

increasing wages. An analysis of the

agricultural system in which the farm

worker provides the necessary cheap ,

labor for the farmer shows no indication

127-

126

"of providing advancement in in

come. In fact, the increasing.:

mechanization of farms without a

substantial change in the number

of.farm workers provides no pros-_

pect for wage increases. Due to

this, USDA and state and lobed

, agencies are, on theraverage, not

risking certifying many ineligible-

households by using last year's

incomeas a basis for eligibility.

2. Making deductions from estimated annual

incomes (will need chart; may just

0Want to estimate an average deduction

and be done with it.1

a. If source of income estimation

does not account for mandatory ded -.

uctions which were made, subtract

the appropriate ,percentage from the

gross income to get net income.

b. If income' estimation includes

income of children under 18, estimate

the childredS eaknings and subtract

from income. If income estimation

was gross, subtract this before de-

terming net income.

I2g

5.

127

)o. Deduct *110% (20%) of_ net income

or the sum of the allow010.deductions

listed below (WhicheVer is greater).

1. Last year* A:46112es which

were necessary to produce income. ,

a. Travel 7 approximate miles

travelled in last year; multiply

by 15 cents`( ?); subtract from net.

inc

b. Other income producing:6X-

. pensps.

d. Hardship proviSions what allow-

able for hardship deductions will be the

same as indicated by national uniform, .

guidelines (high medical expensest rent'

in extessaf,30% of income, etc.) -

estimate and subtract from net income.

3. DeterminiUgresou pegs.

a. Determine n the same way as epelled

out by'PSDA neti nal guidelines except

1. A car cannot be considered a

resource;

2. Savings made from past year's

income not to be considered a resource,

since it has already been counted'

as.incoMe (may just use reasonable

129

128

savigscailing herel. .

Determini price to be paid for. stamps

1. Two options Ippon to applicant

a.

1. Determine average monthly

income by dividing annual in-

come by 12. I2. PrOrati this average:on the

basis of last yeaks income pattern;

(already determined during annual

income estimation procedure).

3. Make a ache

tA

ule of monthly,

. payments for a worker (also to

be kept on file in that, county).

A.. Worker hats the option of ad-

justing payments during the year

,if-the projected income pattern

prioves to be in error and he is

unable to pay the price of his

maximum Coupon, allotment (will need

guideline). This will be done

by reporting last month's income

to the Food Samp office which

will make a proportiOnal adjust-

"Went for the voming month

ayf "certificationvanding

130

7.

s.

e

129

VerificatiOn is in'eEfect,

theyorksei affidavit should

be sufficient for this proceps..

b. 42 f

1., Determine average monthly in-

come for last yiar.

20 Fix monthly payments according

to this average monehlylmaiiir.

3. Worker then has the option'of

reporting to rood Stamp office when

his monthly incoma drops below the

average established above in order.

to adjust the price/purchase for

thecoming month.

c. Identification Card

1. A Food Stamp eligibility card,

good for one,Year, will be issued

the farm worker.

2., The worker will also be issued.

an attached payment schedule.

3. The ord will indicate the

county in which it was issued.

4. T4As card 'will be valid Or

eligibility in any Food Stamp

county and may be Used as veri-

Eication of eligibility in any

commodities dounty.

131

S.

A

la°

4. Purchaseprocedure for seasonal workers

1. Participating counties must

provide an adequate number of mobile-

rood Stamp purchase'and certificate

units for seasonal worker camps and

other areas. of seasonal worker resi-

dence whenever the location and office

hours of the Food Stamp office make,

accessibility to its office difficult

for farm workers such situations

would includei.

a. No evening office hours

b. No,public transportation

2. Such mobile units shall prOvide

service to seasonal workers with the

same frequency that seasonal workers

are paid.

3. Provision shall be made for

hiring additional personnelon a

Ilkseasonal basis in order to facilitate

the administration of this procedure.

4. 'Where seasonal workers are Spanish

speaking, additional seasonal per-

sonnel mentioned, above shall either

speak Spanish or have a paid inter-

preter.

132

9.

I

it

131

5. Discussion -'beCause MAW

qoaties will no longer bear the

burden of certifying seasonal.

workers, these counties can reason-

. ably be expected to bear some of

' the burden of there, mobile units.

Those counties which serve as home

base counties (where annual certi-

fication will generally take. place)

will receive additional compensation.

B. Under no circumstances will re-

evaluation ofa farm worker's income

. over a month be used as a reason to

continue eligibility' which was previouST.Y.'

established on an annual

4"Vii:6;:kLA°K.

ligf417:14:ciow

132

Food Research and Action Centeras WEST !Ws STRgIETMEW YORK, N, Y. 10027

(212) 666-3004

February I* 1971.

TO: Groups Inferestid in Improving the Food StampProgram

;FR M: Ronald F. POileek andSlephen Elias

RE: Proposed Food Stamp Regulations

Assistant AgrieulturirSecretary Richard Lyng recently announced thatU.S,D.A. will issue "proposed" regulations, purtuant to the amended FoodStamp Act, in or around the beginning of'April. Similar to the proceduresutilized w1 'th the Schott! Lunch Program regulations, these "proposed" ,rig;.ulationS will be published so that persons and groups wishing to offer.comments 011 'be given an opportunity to do so. After reviewing thesecomments, the Department intends to officially promulgate the regulationsIn or around the beginning of July. Unfortunately, the national eligibilitystandards, Food Stamp purchase requirements and monthly coupon allotmentswill be promulgated sometime between April 15 and July I, without anyopportunity to comment thereon.

The folloWing is a list of regulations that should be proposed to theAgriculture Dep*tment. Since the recent amendments cover Important aspects9i the ProgreS, Is evident that many facets of thi Program will requiresubstantial revision. In addition, the new legislation suggests that seriousscrutiny of the current CommodIty,OistrIbutlon Program regulations is toorder. The list of regulations contained herein has, therefore, been dividedInto throe parts: 11) regulations needed to implement the new amendments;(2) regulations relatiog to other parts ofgthe Food Stamp Act; and (5)regulations relating to the Commodity Distribution Pcogram.

I

1 3

133

i. Regulations Required to ImPlement the New Food Stamp Legislation

A. Section 3 (e) C7 U.S.C. Sec. 2012601,' Pefinition of the term"household."

On very essential regulation must necessarily flow from this "anti-hippy commune" provision of the Food Stamp Act. Since aphousehdld denptes"a group of related Individualit..,Cwhol are living as one economic unitsharing common cooking facilities.and for whom food is customarily purchasedIn coMmon " clear that the resources of non-related persons -- Whether

not such persons reside under the same roof -- cannot be computed indetermining a household's Intone.' Regulation% should be specificallywritten to prohibit State agencies from'calculating the resources ofunrelated "men-in-the 4Ouse" orcther parsons In the computation of a house,-hold's Income. This would help county welfare agencies Insofar as uniformityIn adMinistration.of the rood Stamp Program with the public assistanceprograms" Is desirable; since Federal regulations and-Supreme Court decisionsclearly Impose this administrative requirement under the public assistanceprograms C 45 C.F.R. Sec. 203.1; Lewis v. Martin, 397 U.S. 552 (1970) ; cf.Xing v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1965)J, It Is necessary that stellar regulaTTOnsbe promulgated for the Food Stamp Program.

11. Section 4 (b) C7 U.S.C. Sec. 2013,(b)31 Concurrent operation ofthe Food Stamp and Commodity Distribution Programs.

Since very substantial problems are usually onto tared whenever an areaswitches over from .the Commodity Distribution to the F '.Stamp Program, it

Is clear that the concurrent operation. of both programa s necessary lbr atleast half a year. The best example for this need Is found in the recentswitch-0er of food programs In New York City. Out of an approximate750,000 non-welfare persons estimated to be eligible for%the Food StampProgram, "" less than 40,000 non-welfare Indigents were certified for eligibilityes of two months after implementation of the Program. Five months thereafter;substantially less than 100,000 non-welfare persons were- certified for Programparticipation.- Clearly, at least half a year Is necessary for a smooth'transition from the CommOdIty Distribution to the Food Stamp Program.

Concurrent operation of the Food Stamp and Commodity DistributionPrograms "on request of the State agency" should be accomplished with asfew obstancles as possible. in this regard, two things are essential,.

"Old,Age Assistance L42 -U.S.C. Secs. 301 et se 3.; Aid anServices toNeedy Families with Children [42 U.S.C. SiFs7501 it seq.3 ; Aid to theBlind [42 U.S.C. Secs. 1201 it 1,11.J and Ald to the Permanently and Totally '

Disabled C421J:S.C. Secs. Iff et teg.3.

**This estimation was made by New York Social Services CommissionerJack R. Goldberg and New York Food Stamp Administrator Arthur Schiffand made a part of the record in Figueroa v. Goldberg, Civ, Action No.70 C,I227 (E.D.N.Y., 1970Y.

It

135

v

3.

First, tb's administrative costs for operating raCcarrodIty Distribution15Prgrem should not be paid for excluilVely by, the State or local agency.The Feciera/GOvernmant should pay at least half of the administrativecost or, at avery minimum, provide financial assistance for Programadministration with the funds made available under 7 U.S.C; loc. 250:15.Second; requests for operating both food programs should be honored if such

are mad. either by.the State agency or, the local administrativeunit administeringEirrograntlfor the State agen0).in that area. As longas thirStatOs portion of the administratfve costs is paid for, either the

or the county agency should be authorized to make the request for the, concurrent operation of both food programs.

C. Section Sib) C7 U.S.C. Sec. 2014 ib)j : National EligibilityStandards.

Tltlfollowing should be nsi d the absolute minimal national

stands for determining ell lit in the Fociettamp Program;

,Household Size Annual Income

$1120

2 , 2240

3, 3

4 4240

5 5040

6 5760

. 7 e4e0

7200

For each additions) person 10 the hodsehold add $640.

This 'table was established as an absolute minimal standard on thefollowing basis: -Assuming.the worst for...Indigent households with regardto the monthly coupon allotmenti7in the Food Stamp purchase prices-A.0.that the coupOn allotments will remain as they had been prior to the recentamendments and that the purchase prices will be 30% of each houtehold'stotal monthly income- -the table reflects the pOint at which each householdsize will be required to pay Cos the food stamp,purchase price) the equivalentof the total food stamp coupon allotment. This is the:minlmal pricing out

point under the Act.* Since the coupon allotment reflects the Secretary's

1A--T7itt*----nexampleohounflguresweredetermined is the following: An

Impoverished four-person household will receive, at a minimum, $106 worthin stamps per month -- or $1272 In stamps per year. Since 30% of income Is

the ximum food stamp price that can be charged, the minimal pricitlpout

point will e refereed by the following equation: .30 ix) Ic$1272!

(X n $4240)-

4 136

4

1ludgment as to the minimal cost of a'"nutritiOnaity aleqUate diet"[Sections .4(a) and:7(0), Seas. 2013(4) and gRO6 (a.),I.and,einceall poi-Sens belOw-the minimal pricing out point Mustikby terms of the Act,be unable to purchase such al"hutritionally adequate Apt," it te clearthat all persons helOw the pricing out point must be:eligible for toed:stampasSIstance. It'otherWite, the Program's purpose of:petmitting all "JoWIncome households to purchase.a nutritionally adequate'diet" LSection 2,7 U.S.C. Sec.20117 Would be totally frustrated?

Since the coupon allotment.emeSt be.-"adjusted annually:to-reflect-changes In the prices of.food published by the BUreaU of tabot Statistics,.in the Department of Labor" [Section 7 (a).,. 7 U.S.C:Sec. 2016 (03,*theMinimal pricing out poIntwould be:changed:annlialiy, As 6 result, the 0

national eligibility standards must',Dp adjusted annually to ect-tl

.,.new minimal pricing out point under Ihe Abt. .

It must be" .mderscored that the-eligibility standards set forth aboveare' absolute 'floors. Since coupon:allotments will _hopefully be increasedabove their present fevels,* and since the purchase prices will hopefullybe below 30 of totarincome,** the pricing out 'Point may be 'aignificentlyhigher thin, the figures set forth above. Accordingly, aach-Sfate'should 1)0

'permitted-1-o raise Its eligibility criteria above the minimal national :

. standard. .

f.

Since the Family Assistance PlIn (hereinafter F.A.P.) will be Con-sidered again during this Congressional session,, if would be wIse to uniformlyprovide a "work .incentive" in the Food Stamp Program that would be admin.ietered consistently with F:A.P. Therefdre, earned income should be OompUtedPC, as to encourage people to work.. The following F.A.P. form(da should beutilized: In comPutingilhood stamp eligibility.-end 4nefif levels, the firstS60 .a month of earned income should-be fully asregarded and the next 50cents: thereafter,for every dollar earned, should alSo be disregarded. By, .,

computing income in this manner, the regulations would promote COngresSionelIntent in two ways: (1) it would promote Congressional interests in getting ..people to work; and (2) F.A.P. and the Food Stamp Program would be properlycoordinated. . .

' '

In addition to the work incentives, deductions in the computations ofincom6 should be required for work expenses; Moreover, large personalekpenses -.-, such as payments of over 30% of income for rent, utilities andmedical needs -- should fie deducted in determinIngeligibliity and bbnefitlevels; although this feature is already found in most food sp plans ofoperation, this should be uniformly required in the regulation

1 ,

With,regard.to "other financial resources, Including both liquid andnonliqbid assets, to be used as criteria of eligibility" [Sec. 5 (b), 7 U.S.C..Sec. 2014 (b)], the regulations should establish minimal.nationgl standards

"Seem*he analysis of Section 7 (a), infra.**See the analysis of Section 7 (b), infra.

Z.

that -tassUre that alt Welfare rectplents will be eligible to participate inthe Program. It Is therefore necessary that-the public assistance plans of .

:operation be scrutinized; the national food stamp eligibility standardsfhould not be more restrictive than the Welfare eligibility criteria In any.of the plans of operation, Ownership of a house and ,tar particularlywhere a tar'je needed for heal4h, proximity "hi essential facilities, ortransportation to work -- should not be penalized. Once again, the States,' ';

Must be permitted to establish higher standards than the minimal national criteria.

P. Settler: 5' (li) [7 U.S.C. Set. 204f (b')]: Puerto Rico and theTerritories. 1

-

The Secretary:ds tupposed.te establish el,lgibility, standards and

coupon allotment schedules for Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.These standards should "reflect the'average per capita income and costof obtaining anutritionally adequate diet in.Puerto Rico and the re-.speetive territories.", [Section 5 tbr, 7 U.S.C, Sec. 20.14 (b)].(em-phasts added). These standards 'are of greatest Importance for seVeralreasons: (1) the welfare grant levels:In Puerto Rico are unconscionably'low -- e.g. Sp per month tor 0.family of four; (2) conditions of hunger,

. malnutrition and starvation are Jragically found fhroUghbut Puerto Rttol(3) the unemployment rate in Puerto-Rico, outside of metropolitan San Juan,Is 23.3% (as of December,1270); and (4) the cost of living in puertosRicois at.least as high as the. .cost of Hying thrOughout the United States.

If U.S.D.A. l's-to adhere to the "cost of obtaining a nutritionallyadequate diet" standard In $ection, 5(b), the gitgiblllty criteria andcoupon allotment schedules for Puerte'Rico must be identicalto the onesused in the United States. This Is because studies conclusively show thatIt is more expensive to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet In PuertoRico-than 4t is for people In the United States. The most comprehensiveStudy completed,' -- a 77 page study conducted by the Puerto Rico.Departmentof Health, with the cooperation of the University ofj'eurte Rico -- showsthat a family of five In Puerto Rico needs S140.14 monthly to purchase anutritionally adequate diet. This, of course, is substantially' higher thanU.S.D.A.'s $126 economy elan.** COnsequeqtly, if 0:S.D.A. promulgateslower eligibility standards and coupon allotMents for Puerto Rite, Congressionaldictates -will hatiebeen'abrogated and court actions would be commenced.

E. Section 5(c) [7 U.S.C, Sec. 2014 (c)]: The Work Requirements`**

'1. Persons Covered:

*Wecesidades Basicas Del. Puertorriqueno en et 1970 (May, f970).

**. The reason for the higher cost. of purchasing a nutritionally adequatediet is that approximately 75% of the food consumed in Puerto Rico is imported(mainly From the United States). The shipping charges cause .food prices in

R: to be generally higher than United States' prices.-

*** This section of the regulations substantially incorporates thesuggestions of the National Council on Hunger and Malnutrition.'

138

al .1 "Ab1e4oilied"" -- Should be strictly construed to excludefrom registration and work any otherwise covered achilt who-suffers froma mental or physical handicap or disability (partial or total) that pee--vents him.from working ItCgenerat aslAll-as to exclude from the workrequirement only any otherwise coYe6c1 adult who Is psychologically orphysiologically incapacitated from performing the particular job beingoffered. The nature of the handicap that. exempts an adult, from anym6yermgm should include such essentially uncontrollable diseases at Moo-:holism and drug addiction,, for which there are batter peogrammatiC dares

. than starvation. The handicap that exempts a person from having to takethe specific proferred Job should include his physiCal or mental Inabilityto work because'of the lack of requisite skills or tealning.7 In Makingany of these determinations of incapacity, the administering agency should.accept as conclusive a letter or similar document/60aining the incapacityfront a competent medical authority and, in the ebsenCe of such a document,should make an evaluation Itself to light of the standardt it customarilyapplies in unemployMent compensation cases.

Legislative history - The HOuse-Committee Report, 91-1402, in dit-cussing the work amendment-it offered, noted itipt the committee, ofcourse, recognizes that most recipients of fooclstamps are poOr as a resultof circumstances beyond their control - old age, ditabillty, physical 4fr

'handicap,,otc: there is a small minority of recipients who are poor becausethey choose to be peer." Report, p. 10. Rep. Albert Qule, in agreeing, tosupport .the Confgrence Report, stated at H. 12543 in the CongressionalRedbrd of December 30, 1970, that:, "To the extent that the work Provision .

might be onerous, I belle4, No. I, the DeCOOment OftAgrtdultUre should doeverything it possibly can in Its guidelines to make this provision esacceptable as possible. As-an- example, an'alcoholic father should be foundmedically handicapped Just as anyone else with a disease that prevents themfrom working, end-the family not be'denied food stamps when he Is not working."

b). "Aeclult".- Defined by the statute itsdlf to include personswho have Just had their 18th birthday up to those who are on the brink oftheir 65th. .

2. Persons Exempted;

a). "Mothers...of dependent children" -- Should coverjpothersof individuals whoare'under the age of eighteen, regardless of the availabilityof day care, the actual,need for the mother's presence during the day, etc.'

Legislative history - The term."dependent children". Is not ppecificallypinpointed In any of the reports or floor debates on ,the bill, but It Is aterm of art from welfare law and especially Section 406 (a) (2) (A) of theSocial Security' Act, as'amended The other ca"rts of the term/s.def4nitlonare irrelevant In this context.Oheed" is taken care of by other pilgibility

*ln some state plans of operation for publeCassistance, the t(;ri."de7pendent children" means children under 2.1 years of ego; a few States use,the term to denote children under 16 years of age. No State uses a rowerfigure thah 16 years; the overwhelming majority of States use 18 yearg of ageand under as the definition of "dependent children."

Standards; students are exempted other ways. In addition, 0'6.21691,Congressional Record of December 31, 1970, Senator Hitler of Iowa, who wasa Member of the conference, pointed 04 thaf.the bill exempts from thework r ul spent mothers of small children even if day care centers aresvelte .le as opposed' to the welfare bill which requires mothers with

"child en aged 7 or older to work. By "a mother with small children," the..Senator said he was "not talking about babes in arms, but 1 am talking abouf .

those, Certainly, of-school age." Certainly the exemption of persons underLB years of age from the work registration requirement is tpdicative that

____CongiessAntanded that such youngsters be considered "dependent children"for whom parental care and,protection is necessary,

b). "Other members of the hoUsehold who have responsibility ofcare of dependent children or of 4ncapeciteted adults" - - Should cover afather who stays home with the children who are too young for school or whenthey are at home from school ( 3 p.m. or noon on), particularly if the motherchooses to work. Also includes any relative who looks after th6 childrenduring off-school, but'regular working hours. It should extend to any adultwho is respOnsible for caring for another adult who is Incapacitated in thesense that, at any time during the course ofthe regular working day, the firstexempted adult has certain chores to perform on behalf of the Incapacitated

rir,withomt which the incapacitilted adult could not live a.decent life (e.g.IN, dressing, bathing, walking, etc.)'. This is a practical concept*Of

responsibility; not a legal one InyOlving the prerequisite of a court order ofsuch "responsibility."

Legislative history support House Agriculture Committee ChairmanPoage referred on tge tloor H. 12542, Congressional Record, December 30,1970 -- to those who are responsible for the care of "invalid members...ofthe household" or those "who care for...incapacttated family meMberS."Clearly, he was using the term "responsible" In a non-legal context.

c). "Bona fide studedts in any accredited Scheel or trainingprogram" -- Should be construed in part In accordance with the relevantportions of similar provisions In SeCtion 406 (a) (2) . (8) of the SocialSecurity Act to cover any adult of any age (no 1lMit of 21) who can producea certificate from the appropriate recording official showing that he is"regularly attendtng school, college, or university, or reg larly attendinga course of vocational or technical training designed to fl him for gainful

employment". The school attendance need not be limited in to Of duration.

d). "Persons employed and working at least 30 hours per week" --In order to avoid a pbtentlelly unconstitutional interpretation, this exemptionshoo*, be broadly read to cover employed persons who work the equivalent of30 hodrs per week in terms of wages, that is who earn at least $39 per week(30 hours times $1.30). Otherwise, a person who worked 25 hours at a $3 rate and"Was 41 a household large enough to be'othereise eligible to receive stampscould be forced to 'TO earning $75 per week and take a 30 or 40 hourjobpaying a maximum of $39/$53 In order to receive continued food aid. In

additton, persons who already have a Job but who are not presentlyworking due to a strike at their office orylant should be consideredexempt from registration.

1 4 Of

1.39A

islativi histo - Chairman Poage,referred to this -- H (2543 --..as "a na prov)s on; and it Is In there for the reason that If-somebodyIs a er with only I hour of work a week, he might effectively evadeall pr tiOal results of the provision." , Someone earntng over S39 per week,no matter hdw many hours worked, is cleprly not in the "freeloader" clesealo. "whom the work requirement is ditected.,[See House ComMitte Repot, id. 4!.z--------

The eXelnption of strikers frollithe *tStr;Stlon requirement, white" up ION' W- -;discretIon of the Secretary, is asselitial.;09ause:Congress did "notwisktO 41-/ .

take silis In labor disputes and 1119elleve.4hIs bill Is the proper.

place .to solve labor - management Fr lill.Mal7" . [House Committee,p in 410rater7L--the rejection of the Abbitt Substitute Bill in the House Verifil0,4ven morestrongly thin the Committee; that the Food Stamp Program is not to be usedfor coercing any side in a labOr dispute.' Certainly If strikershad toregivie for work this wbuld put the Agriculture Department in a posItiolt Of"support ng management andtrIppling labor; thereby.violating Congressionalintenti ns of strict neutrality.

.

1 -.: --'-

3, Nature of the Registration Requirement:

mi

,

Al hough the statute calls for registration !eat" a State or Federalemploy nt office, there is no reason the physical filling out of therequisite forms could not be done by the/ covered adult household membersat the. bertificatton office at1.hp same time as certtfication occurs,with -him forms then to be transferred to the relevant employment officeat which place the adults would then be registr It slicluid, by detinitIon,. .

Eli always Impractical to require an applicant actually to go to the employmentoffice Merely to register, since that WoUld waste the time of both theapplicats end the bureaucrats. Registration should be easy, simple, mechanicalin nature.

s. Nature of the work requirement:

). The Jobs that must by accepted -

somethillg that must e acceptedilt must-be excluded as a requirement.

.I) Trainin s- Since tralningsi not mentIoned,In the Act as

Ai) Employment.- Since the Act Is not specific about who. .

offers he employment,' it would be best to incorporate the safeguards ofthe weItar bill and require the offer to come from the local or State publicemployment office. o

((() Public Work - Again, the legislattVe history Is slientl'. 9n this matter, but since the President has Just vetoed a public work Man-power b II, In part because of alleged concern over Its millwork, WPA-Ilkquallti s, Safeguards should be applied to guarantee that the public itork offers

111

140

9.

Suitable prospects.fOr advancement into private employment with a year andis not of a dig-a-hole-and-filltheholo variety. Municipalities and

counfles should not be permitted.to undercut their own regular work forcesby offerIng Identical jobs to food stamp recipients at $1.30 per hour , thatIs, to save.labor costs by relying on a captive labor pool.

Iv) Wageevels - Although the strict reading of the statute doesnot sake such a zonclusion crystal Clear, the absOlute rock bottom hourlywage floor of any job offered must be $1.30. No job paying less then thatshould haVo to be accepted, even if the something less were In accordancewith'an applicable State minimum wage. The Federal minimum is $1.60. andFederal regulatory wages higher so that the State minimum presents the onlythreat to .the $1.30 floor In 16 states' (Arizona,. Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia) towhich the State minimum Is below $1.30 and covers jobs not covered by theFederal minimum or regulation. While $1.30 Is the floor, thi highest of theapplicable Federal minimum, State minimum, or Federal regulatory wag. wouldgovern, and any proferred Job would have to meet that highest level or berejectable.wIthout adverse food stamp consequences.

Legislative History - A floor colloquoy between Rep. Thomas Foley andChairman Poage H. 12542 -- makes this point as well as could be expected.Rep. Foley hypothesized a situation'sUch that "In a state the minimum wageis 85 cents an tour under Stae law, end there Is no Federal category for theparticular classification of work, could a person be required to accept worket 85 cents an hour?" Chairman Poagdis response was: "NO;*he would have toget $1.30 an hour. He would have to be offered work at $1.30 en hour beforehe would have to take It." Rep: Foley pushed on: "In other words, in noevent could employment be offered at less than $1.30 an hour?" "That Is right,"replied Chairman Poage. "Even though-there might be a lower State minimum ewage," Rep. Foley concluded. "Yes, that is correct," answered Chairmen.Poage.

v) Location of the Job The House conferees made 1,f clear thatpersons should not have to travel long distances to the Jobs being Offered.The Conference Report, at p. 7, states' the conferees, "Intentions that theSecretary not impose a requirement for any person.to accept a Job which islocated an unreasonable distance (such as In a distant state) from theresidence of such person." The Ourpose7of this requirement Is to avoidbreaking up families by keeping the breadwinner at home so that'he or she canprovide proper dare for the children and the family. Moreover, since thedefinition of the term "household" [In Section 3(e)] speaks In terms of"related indivlduals...living as'one economic unit sharing common cooking,facilities and for whom food Is customarily purchased In common," It Isobvious that the -work requirement'Was not intended to force 'holly members totake Jobs thatkeep thefi.awayifrom home: Enforcement Of Congressional intentshould be-accomplished by two specific regulations. requiring that: (I) no

household **weber be forced to accept a Job that requires him or her to stayaway from home overnight; and (2) no one be forced to accept employment thatrequire* a travelling time of more than 45 minutes (each way) to the job .bypublic transportation.

142'.

141

v1) Suitability of the work - Even though the Act makes noreference to the so- called "suitability" concept, it fs'essentlal. topermit an able-bodied adult to refuse to accept any employment thatIs not fitted to his physical or mental capacity or skills or training(either less or more qualified) or that Is, or maybe, dangerous to his -:health and safety. These minimal aspects of "suitability" should be .

Incorporated Into the regulations since they ars currently part of thework requiriment now contained in at least il State food stamp plansapproved by U.S.O.A. All of those plans refer to the fact that noemployable member of a household miy refuse to accept "suitable employment,"In addition, no work shodid be required to be accepted that is not offeredfor at least the three-month term of the normal Certification period on a30 to 40 hoUr pek-week basis. Part-time work.or work of limited duration

does not satisfy the thrust of the work requirement of forcing poor personsto Work themselves out of poverty; it amounts merely to herassment.

.

lesitlative history - The House Committee Report at p. 12 specificallystates that "the .committee has left to the Secretary the determination .

pf suitable 'employment for individuals concerOed..." (emphasis supplied).The Committee went on to indicate that the Secretary had similar leewayin deterran(ng "the level.of wages applied to that employment," althoughit warned the Secretary not to establish any minimum wages. The Conference

Report, however did establish such a minimum wage. But the Conference

Report di.dnot4lfect the Secretary's expressly delegated power toascertain the suitability of the employment offered. In addition, the fact

that the Committee was aware of the suitability provisions in the II or sowork requirements than in effect under various Stet* plans, and that itthereafter sought to make the work requirement a Metter incorporated In"uniform national standards of eligibility" to be In State plans, Indicatesan iritent to bring Prior practice into all States, subject to certain

specific limitations as to persons and Jobs ctivered. This is in accord With

legal doctrines relating to acquiescence by Congress of an administratIVaproctice,"in thiO instance the approval of State plans with Precisely such

" suitability" provisions in them.

vii) Procedure The manner in which the work requirement is

enforced Is crucial. If a covered addit is required not only to registerat the certification office before his family can begin to receive foodstamp assistance, but also physically to go to the appropriate employmentoffice, for Job consideration, the requirement by virtue oflogistics willkeep hundres of thousands of famIllea off food - stamps for en indefinite

period of time. Food stamp eligibility would then be dependent on theability of the employment offICes to handle. the work, and would be totally

Independent of the adult's willingness to accept work. Thus, if covered

edult'must return to the certification office with a "no Job f5 available" .

slip from the employment office before his family can start to receivestamps; the requirement will be Indiscriminately cruel in Its impact, evenupon those who eventually satisfy it. This was not the Intent of Congress

when It passed the Act.

22-201 0 - 72 - 10

14T.

142

The preleired procedure would he the tandem certification-rogistrattb referred to above followed by/the receipt of authorizationto purshasevards by otherwise eligible households. Thereafter, theappropriate employment office, armed with the pertinent information onkregistration Card, could contact any covered adult for whom it had orknint of a required Job and give that adult two weeks to accept it; If theadult did not accept the job, the employment offjcs would inform theadult of its intent to contact the certification office and rsquost itily.cease Issuing authorization to purchase cards to that family Ustilisuch time as.the particular Job or other 30-hour-plus per week workwere accepted, or until the particular Job offered booms unavailablebecause It was filled.by another.or deieted,or whatevor. At that point,the affected adult would, pursuant to Goldberg v. Kell; 397 U.S. 254(1970), have the right, upon reasonable notice, to a fair hearing beforean uninvolved person in the certification agency with the right.tomaks anoral presentation and confront any adverse witnesses (e.g. the putativeemployer). The fiir hearing would determine whether the safeguards inthe.regulations were complied.with. Only upon Conclusion of this fairhearing, with a reasoned finding against tha adult, could his family'sallotment be terminated and then only In the context of the timelimitation on the declined Job's availability. Once. the Job expired,the employment office could make alternative offers of other unrefutablojobs, which would require separate hearings.

F. Section 7(a) C7 U.S.C, Sec. 2016(a)3; Coupon Allotments

Under the Food Stamp Act of 1964, prior to the recent amendment,Section 7(a) authorized U.S.D.A. to issue coupon allotments that wouldprovide households "more nearly" with an adequate nutritional diet.Ely Its very terms, the old Act did not authorize the Secretary to !sumfood stamps that would subsidize a nutritionally adillultsi dist. Underthe recent amintments, the Sedretaryinust issue food stamps In an amountdetermined "to bi the cost of a nutriTTWally adsquati die." It Is choir,therefore, that the coupon allotments must be substantially iricreaSed toreflect the new changes In the Act. .

Although the $134 (for a four-person household/low-coat dist pia)of the Agricultural Research Service was rejected In the ConferenceReport, neither the House nor the Senate embraced the $106 economy diet.plan. Since the economy diet plan was Implemented undir the old Act(with Its "more nearly" adequate nutritional diet provision), -and sincethat economy plan is at unsatisfactory one that is outdated (since It wasrevised most recently In 1966) and Is described iryli.S.D.A. as an emergencyplan that Is not nutritionally adequate, it canndt be implemented under theamended Act. The Department Is already on record stating that the $106economy plan Is Inadequate; it stated the following, In a menu-planningguide, on the economy plan:

Studies show that few families spending at the level ofthe Economy Plan Select foods that provide nutritionallyadequate diets. The cost of this plan is not a reasonable

144 ,

143

measure of basic money need's for a good diet. Thepublic assistance agency that recognizes the'llmitations-of its clientele and is interested In their nutritionalwell-being, will recommend a money allowance for foodconsiderably higher than the cost level of the Economy

Plan. Many welter* agencies base-their food coltstandards on the.U.S.D.A. Low -Cost Plan which cost%about 25 percent more than the Economy Pion..

It is hoped that U.S.D.A. will'comply with its own admonition;' and conclusionsabout the cost of a nutOtionally adiquats diet. .

G. Section 7(b) [7U.i.C.:Sec. 2016(b)1; Food Stamp Purchase

. fleqUIrements.

The food stamp purchase prier Is probably the most essential element

of the Food Stamp Program. Under the old Act, participation levels Worevery low du* to prohlbIttm prices. To Correct those deficiencies, the

Secretary should: (I). use his new authority to provide free stampsto four-persOn households with monthly Endows of $30 or less (and providehigher IncoMe levels for free Toad stamps for larger households); and (2)promulgate pri0 schedules that, is much st possible, are IS% or lower

of a household's monthly income: This percentage should not be exceededsince that is the *mount that most people spend on food purchases...

The option provisions of the regulations should be reasonably, tailoredto encourage as much participation in the Program as possible. HOUseholds

should be permitted to purchase one-half, one-quarter, ono-eighth and 0,14..sikteanth of their monthly authorizations. If a houeshold -- during a later

time during the month -- wishes to purchase additional stamps, it 'Wildbs Permitted to do so up to its Monthly authorized amount. Under such

scheme, it Is necessary that previous regulatory requirement's with regardto !If-ovular participation" be rescinded; If otherwise, the Intent of Congress-- to provide eligible households with a flexible method of purchasing their

way into the Program -- would be frustrated.

H. Section JO(c) C7 U.S.C. Sec. 2019(c)1; Self-Certification

Applications.

In order that the application procedure Is truly simplified,II.S.O.A.should require that aft self.-cortlftcstIon spollcstIons be short, simple ,to

answer, and without irrelevant questions thereon. The only permissiblequestions on such an applicitiod should cover the household members' names'end address; the number of persons in the household; the fatal Income of the.household; thchouseholdts assets; and the household's expenditures (but only

for purposes of determining deductions from income).

115

,144

13.

I. Section 10(c) C7 U.S.C. Sec. 2019(c)3: Sixty Days of Continued. In New State,.

Although this statutory provision is fairly clear, It is importantto make sure that similar r-protections ere provided to persons moving from a-CommOdity Distribution Program area to a Food Stamp Program area. Withoutsuch * provision, the "60-day" amendment will be of no consequence to luny,'if not most, migrants -- the intended beneficiaries of this provision.Almost all migrants from Texas, as an siemple, would receive tittle benefit'from the new Ant's prOvisions without such a regulation; this is because

,Ailmost every Texas county has a Commodity Distribution Program. sU.S.D.A.should.promulgste regulations, and establish procedures, for requiringCommodity DIstribUtIon eligibility determinations to be utilized for 60 -dayeligibility In the Food Stamp Program whenever a person moves from one Stateto another." '

1. Section 10(e) (5) [7U.S.C. Sec. 2019(0 (5)3: Outreach Efforts

Regulations rejating to outreach efforts that are made by the local'administrative egenly should cleirly require that poor persons must be

to perform the outreach work. Monty should be made available out ofSection 32 [7 U.S.C. Sic. 612(c)J funds for the purposes of subsidizinglocal agenclest.outreach efforts.

K. Section 10(e) (6) [7 U.S.C. -Sec. 2019 (o) (6)]: HearingRegulations and-the Welfare Check-Off

In order to comply with'ConstitutIonal "fair hearing" requirements,It qs essential that the regulations guarantee food slip recipientshearing prior to termination dr reduction of assistance authorizations.[See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)..1 This lama that hearings mustbe conducted, and an adverse decision made against the household, before: .

such household is terminated from food stamp assistance; such household'scoupon 'allotments are reduced; and such household's purchase requirementsare Increased.- As a result of the Goldberg decision, any failure to complywith the above requirements would be violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's"due process" dictates.

The reguIatiods should also require that households adversely effectedby 401.111 decisions, who file for fair hearings and win such hearings;should be entitled to retroactive authorizations so that they can secure theirlost entitlements. This regulation would conform the Food Stamp Programrequirements.with the requirements of the Federally aided publit assistance,programs. [See H.E.W. Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, Part IV,'

It Is recognIiiTTEirthls will require a few changes In the eligibility...deterintriation procedures used tor the Commodity Distribution Program.Nevertheless, the nutritional problems of migrants ire often so egregiousthat such new prOcedures are Imperative.

146

145

14.

Sec. 62001k)), thereby assuring less complicated administrative pro-cedures for the local welfare agency.

The "fair hearing" rights of households should be sit out Indetail so that protections are provided that wil assure complete fairnessin the hearing procedures. Such regulations would have the positiVe effectof preventing the utilikation of hearing procedures that are in violationof Constitutional requirements. In this regard, the School Lunch Programregulations could be used is a helpfua guide in the promulgation of similarfood stamp regulations. [See 7 C.F.R. Sec. 245.11]

Finally, the welfare cheek-off 'regulations should clearly indicate thatno public assistance household is to be coerced into participating in theFood Stamp Program withbpt any harmful consequence to welfare entitlement orany other right.

L. Section 10 (h)(7 U.S.G. 52019 (h)):The "Meals on Wheels" Program.

The non-profit organizations and politidal subdivisionswishing to participate in the "Meals-on-Wheels" program shouldbe permitted to receive federally &mated foods from U.S.D.A.,as lon as such foods are not used in the- "Meal -on- Wheels" pro-gram. ims is crucial since many of the agencies that are likelyto want to participate in "Meals -bn-Wheels' will already be in-velvet' in other feeding programs that utilize federally donatedcommoditiei=the language of the Act supports such a provisioninsofar as it states that agencies Wishing to prepare "Meals-on-Wheels" may not be "receiving federally donated foods' from the.United States Department of Agriculture for use in the prepara-tion of such meals."

av

The steals prepared should be made available for serwvice ata place where numerous elderly and feeble persons can eat together.,Since millions of elderly and feeble persons "are unable to ade-quately prepare all of their meals°, but. such persons may notnecessarily be confined to their home, they should be given theopportunity to eat in a setting that takes them out of isolation.Such a regulation would also assure that the "Meals-on-Wheels"program could be made available to a substantial percentage ofneedy elderly persons.

M. General Provision Enforcing Federal Supremacy InRegulations. Governing the Food Stamp Program.

A regulation must be promulgated that clearly prohibitsStates from establishing more stringent eligibility criteria than

117

146

1s,

is contained in the Food Stamp Act and the regulations promul-gated thereunder. This would assure that the intentioni'OfCongress could not be frustrated by State agencies. In adds --

' tion, it would avoid possible unconstitutional attempts byState agencies to limit the number of households participatingin the Food Stamp Program, this being unconstitutional insofar,as Federal Statute has already preempted the applicable law.Such a proVision, as an example, would prevent States from estah-lishing.more stringent work requirements that do not providethe protections accorded in the Act and the Federal regulations.*

II. Regulations Relating to Other Parts of theFood Stamp Act.

A. Section 8(a) (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2017(a) ):Approval of Retail Food Stores

This section sets forth the basis for authorizing stores toaccept and redeem coupons under the Food Stamp Program. The mostimpertant,provision under this section clearly requires, that storeswill be approved for Program participation if their "participationwill effectuate the purpose of the food stamp program," Unfortun-P ately. this provision has remained a meaningless phrase as fir asfood stamp recipients ace concerned; this is because U.S.D.A. hasfailed to protect needy households from, merchants' practices thatare entirely inimical to the purnosejofthe Food Stamp Act ---i.e: increasing the food purchasing power of low - income households.

Numerous stores have frustrated the.Act's purposes by imple-menting pricing practices that decrease the food purchasing powerof the poor. The following fre4WITETroccurs: (1) prices ofdomestic food items increase as soon as stores are certified toparticipate in the Program; (2) prices of domestic food items in-crease during the period in the month that foodgtamp coupons aresold; and (3) prices of domestic food items, particularly forchain outfits, are higher in ghetto stores than in stores locatedin more affluent communities. Each of these practices is incon-sistent with the purpose of increasing the food purchasing power'of the needy. Consequently, stores perpetrating such practicesshould no longer be authorized to sell their food for stamp coupons.

B. Section 10(e)(2) (7U.S.C. Sec. 2019(e)(2)):Eligibility Certification Procedures

Under the Act, State agencies are required to "undertake thecertification of applicant households in accordance with tie gene-ral procedures ... usedby them in the certification of applicantsfor benefits undeethe federally aided public assistance programs:'.

148

(6.

4In other words, whatever procedures are utilized for certify-ing households for welfare, those are the procedures that Mustbe utilizbd.for certifying families for food stamps -- whetheror not such applicant households are receiving welfare.

This Means thattwo essential provisions must be incorpo,rated in the regulations.- First, State agencies must certifyapplicant households for Program eligibility -- and prOvide themwith their authorizations to purchase -- within 30 days from thefirst request for food assistance. This is the procedural rw-quirement under all of the federally aided public assistance pro-grams. (See Handbook of Public Assistance AdminiStration, PartIV, Secs. 2200 (b)(3) and 2300 (b)(5). Second, State Agenciesmust certify all applicant households ---iXWEFer or not they arepublic assistance recipients ,c,- for Program eligibility through'a simplified self-declaration Myste* if the State agency utiliOlfessuch a system for public assistance eligibility determinations:

%.

C. Migrant Eligibility Certification

Impoverished migrant households-- the group of persons mostin need of Program benefits -- have Usually, encountered the great-est difficulties in obalning food program benefits. As a result.of bureaucratic obstacles and rigid regulations, migrants havebeen excluded from Program participation. U.S.D.A. must promulgate regulations that eliminate these unnecessary bureaucratic -

obstacles to meaningful migrant participation.

One of the most crucial changes that must be made has alreadybeenrindicated. (See Part I, subpartI,.p. 13, supra). Anothernecessary change deals with the method of computing eligibilitycertification -- for impoverished migrants -- to be accomplished onan annual basis. If a household qualifies for food stamps based onannual income computations eligibility should be assured on a year-round basis, despite relatively high income levels during periods ofseasonal employment. Moreover, such annual certification would prorate'income on the basis of projected monthly income for each month

the year. This would help assure that monthly food stamp pur-chase requirements wore realistically related to current income.Of course, because of the seasonal and unstable nature of theincome receipts for the migrants, allowances would have to be made

MI

119

rr.

for permitting a household to have their 'stamp prices adjusteddue to asvariation from the projected monthly income. (fullleport of the nedb.sary changes-for improving migrants' parti-cipation in the Food Steep Program will be completed and sub- .

ratted to you in the very near _future).

II Necessary Change In the CommodityDistributionProgram.

Since either the Food Stamp Program br the Commodity Distri-bution Program is An existence in almost every county, and 'sinceno counties currently are operating bothprograms, it is imperative that eligibility criteria for both programs be identical.Consequently, the national eligibility criteria promulgated bythe Secreta.pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Act (7 U.S.C.,

,Sec. 2014(b)ry) should be promulgated for the. Commodity 4stribu-tion Program as well., If otherwise,- indigents in CommodityDistribution counties would be denied their Constitutional rightsto equal protection insofar as they would be denied Federal foodbenefits on the irrational basis of their place of residence.

r

C

150

149

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED 'poi' STAMP REGULATIONSDY THE MIGRANT LEGAL:ACTION PROGRAM, INC..

WASHINGTON,

Introduction

1.

7he recently proposed regulation* of the load stamp program as it was

recently amended Gongress'pay little or no attention to, the needs of migrant

farmwowars and to the characteristics of their tayof life. The migrant,

constantly on 'he move to obtain emplOYMentm living either temporarily or perma-,

nently in'e hostile envitonment,.is different from iny'Other poor,petson in this

country.' d.

In Section 271'..4(a)(4)(ii4(d),the iegOlatiOns recoEntie.persons who

receive their income from farm employzentas a special class for certification.:

To guarantee that migrants receive the benefits of this! progrem, the regulations%

mOst be redrafted to continue to extend this recognitiOn to all the relevant

-- portions of the. program. Only by recognizing oii; mobility: nhirent in the migrant.

way of life and by designing t14 regulationt,t0weet this problem, can the Food

andMiltritioa-SerVAce expent'tobring food' stamps to a substantial number of -

migrants.; Irm,muromments'below on the regulations, an attempt has been made

to remedy some of. the particular problems in the various regOlations as they

pertain to migrant workers. Although this is by no means a satisfeCtOtP Solution

to the problem, adoption of these.cbmientsifoUldaesist advents in:eetablishing

and maintaining their eligibility for the program.

151

The ioeit solution t6 the Ptobleum encountered by migrants in dealing with

the food!stamp program would be simply to establish a national program,

for fatmworkers. Farmworkers do not recognize the existence of state line. or

project area jurisdictions. Migrants folipw the crepe.. Toadequately.aerve,the

--migrants-the USDA-aud--the-Food-and-Nutrition-Service-shouldifalso-disregikrd_4tata,--

Syyirtue of 7 U.S.C. 203 the Seeretity of Agriculture is Authorized

to formulate and adminiiter a fbod stamp program for eligible houleholds to-receive

a nutritionally adequate diet. Conaiiten6 with this and the intent of Congress

in pasting the Act, expressed in 7 U.S.C. 2011, it is our feeliAg that the re-. 111

sponeible authorities have the power and the duty to establiske special program

for. the purpose of guaranteeing that.migrants receive the full benefits 4f the

food,stamp prograM. This program should be dftrated on a nationwide basis and -

the regulations governing its operation should be drawn to meet the particular

1heeds of the migrint and seasonal farmworker. .For some 21/2 million migrant, and

seasonal farmworkerk and their families the Concept of federalism is 4 'failure.'

A staV,by-state system breaki down in any attempt.to aervice the migrants. Thisi

is a proper area for a nationwide program attuned to this special groul.

Thep..S. Department of Agriculture has traditionally construed its

authority and poweramuch more:strictly than the courts have found to be the

case. In Peoples v. USDA, Civil Action 5421-,68 U.S. District Courtf District of

Columhia,:irwas found that the then promulgated regulations fot tge operation

of the food stamp program, despite the position of the U.S..' Department of Agri-

culture, were tbo narrowly drawn and did not carry out the Congressional. intent

in establishing the food stamp program. Similarly., in Itv v. USDA, U. S. Court-of

Appeals1 5th Cir.; #29303 (April 19,4971 opinion), theU. S. Department of .

151

AgTiculture, despite its protestations to the contrary, was ordered to establish

either a food stamp program or a commodity distrihution program in each and

every county in the.United States. These are but two examples of the Department's

failure.to construe its authorization as widely as 1..necessary to bring the:

benefits, of these programs to the poor of the nation. .The DepertMent of Agriculture

should not fall into the same position with regard to migrants. The power exists

and,it should be utilized to.see that migrants receive an adequate diet.

152

COL ain ON /TOD STAMP REGULATIONS

Section. 271.1(e)

In the pest, the question of resideniy has madeit difficult for migrants toobtain food stamps. Migrants are rejected because they lack intent to permanentlyreside within the stet:. Hot/ever, the !RS and USDA should make it clearer that theymean the term "resident" in alegal sense, i.lt.,'residing in the state or projectartaliithont the intent to permanently remain there,and that the term resident isnot to mean domicile,. i.e., a permanent establishment of Iviing in a state with nointend t0

Section 271.1(h)

Another difficulty in obtaining food stamps,; as was reported to this office,and relayed to the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Richard.LynS, is the long delayin making appointments for people tea apply,for food tamps. In et least one countyin Michigan, persons seeking_food etampi6eare given appointments as much as 30 daysafter their initial inquiries at the local food stamp office: Local office; should ,

be told that this is unacceptable and the regulations shOuldinclude a severe limitationon this tteatMent'of applicants. Otherwise, migrant farmworketsisho spend shortperiods in different 'areas, will be unable to receive food stamp relief.

Section 271.1(k)In order to make the outreach programs of state agencies moreeffeCtiva, regulation'

should be drafted to insure that the outreach operations and the local offices of thefood stamp programa will use materials in-languages Other than English so that the_substantial proportion of the people who are likely to be eligible, for the benefitsof the food stamp program can understand it.

Also, why are services in outreach to he taken only from federally-funded agenciesand organizations? The regulations in question should be drAted to encourage state -agencies and their local offices to avail themselves of the services provided by otherorganisations that do not necessarily receive any fora of federal funding. Includedin this group would be branches of the Migrant Ministry, outreach efforts of localchurches, local organizations in areaselesigned to aid the farmworker, and most im-portant, ushc groups and/or organizations as may be cOepoied of migranti themselvesor their representatives. bee of such groups is more likely to guarantee full part!.icipation in the food stamp program by those eligible households which tan often bereached only by some. informal organization or thrOugh the individual efforts of small'group" or individual'.

Section 271.1(n)Section 271.1(n)(3)

Included in the explanation of the household's right to request a heating should'be the guarantee that this request can be made simply by an oral declaration of suchdesire or checking a box on the notice of the proposed termination.

Section 271.1(o).

In the cape of migrant farswOrkers, the time limitation of 60 days fOr.the cOmple-.

tion of a fair bearing and the issuance of a decision is unreasonably long. Inmostareas where migrants work, and even in the homi,base states, it is highly unlikelythat migrants would be in any one project akea4for more than 60 days. Indeed, oftenthe case is that they stay in a given area for two or three weekt,"mnd at the mostfor five weeks. By using its full allotted time under these regulations, a state agency

153

could, i effect, frustrate the entire purpose of the act and deny these needy peopletha bens its of the program. The Food and Nutrition Service must take into considerationthe part cular way of life and working of the migrants and draft special regulation:in this egard and in other portions of thou regulations to pee that migrants are notdenied t e benefits of this program because of their mobility. For most of the needy, '

the issu of 30 days OM 60 days is not as important as it is to the migrant. If theMigrant forced to wait a couple of extra. weeks in order to receive the benefits ofthe program, it is likely that the work situation will force him to move on, andtherefor abandon his applicatick for food 'temps. It would be unlikely for them toreceive ny benefits from the program. .

'1.Section 71.3(b)(I)(I)(a)

Mig ant and seaso 1 farmuorkers' income should fall within the income standardsfor elig bility for -stamps. The nationalstatistics for farmworker income shattithat all but a very 1 percentage :Of farmworkers earn incomes below the, povertylevel: e average income for a family of four who supplement their form work with'affseason 1 bor is approximately $2100-2200 per year. When the average;larMworker doesnot supplement his income, he earns between $700-800 per year.: Thus, nearly all farm-workers. fall within the food stamp eligibility standards. It is often difficult toget a true reading of the farmworker's actual income from the grower or other possiblesources cf information. It is not required that growers provide farmwgricers withwithhold ng statements or pay slips when they are paid. The farmworker, therefore,has very little.means of proving exactly how much he earns although it a uld be

??generall evident that what he does earn is more likely to exclude him f am the benefits.of the p °gram. He should be Automatically covered and eligible for the benfits ofthe food stamp program upon application and should not be denied these benefits withoutconcrete evidence produced by the state agency showing that he is ineligible. Merelytaking o the work of his employer should not be sufficient. Consideration should alsobe given to the mandatory but not statutory deductions which many employers take fromthe work re pay; e.g., rent deducted for housing that the worker is forced to live inin order to keep his job, equipment, transportation, gas and electricity. This inmost ins noes, worki to make the reported income of the farmworker illusory at best.Also, wh le he might make a substantial amount of money in one week, the changes inthe weat er or the poorness of a particular crop might leave him with no work thefollowin week.

Section 271.3(b)(1)(IV)The Averaging or migrant income will be inadequate to insure that migrants receive

the fullbenefits. No consideration is given to the debts that the migrants are likelyto have accumulated during the, prior winter when work was not available. In addition,it should be simple for the Food and Nutrition Service to project income for migrantsover a coming period of time. The pattern of migrant life is fairly stable andaveraging income over a 12-month period, or even over a quarterly period, would sub-stantially decrease the benefits of this program for the migrant and seasonal farm -worker. When the migrant need' helple usually needs it desperately. The regulationsmust be drawn so that the migrant can be assured that earnings in one period do notcause him an unfair reduction of his benefits in those periods when there is no workavailable.

Sectiom 271.3(d) Work Registration RequirementThere are several questions about the work registration requirement provided in

this section. First, why, if one member of the household refuses without good cause

15,5

154

- 6:0e

to comply with the work registration requirements, is the entire household denied food

stamp benefits? It seems more equitable that the household thould be denied only

those benefits due the dissenting "ember.For the migrant, this regulation could have consequences far beyond those for the

static poor. It is possible that at the tlhe he registers, the Migrant will have no.

work. Suppose the migrant registers one week, the application is referred to the

local employment agency. He is thee called for an interview but in the meantime hehas obtained work,,either in_the area where he had applied, or in another state. Willhis household ba denied foodstampsImecausi he has not reportedsfor'the job interview? 4

Will his certification for food steeps be held up while he is referred to several job.

interviews?What should be the guidelines for determining good cause for refusal tocomply.

with the registration requirements? Is it sufficient that the migrant in7t,ielativelyshort time willAip obtaining work in the stream? Is it sufficient that iiipt0A a short

ties he will be-M5ving from one food stamp area to another food steep art"?The greatest problem with this regulation, as with many of the other regulations .

contained in this grouping, is that no. consideration has been given to the unique

elements in the migrant way of life.

Section 271.4(2)(M)As was stated earlier, actual.verification of migrant income is open to many

questions. The comments expressed earlier at Section 271.3(b)(1)(I)(a) are totally

applicable to this section..

Section 271.4(3)Provision should be mode for emergency certification of migrants, particularly

when therare in the stream and working. They need their food stamps at these times

as ouch as they need themwhen they are in their hove base states. To.allow,a state

to establish a 30-day period could deny many migrants the benefits of this program.

and in rem y probably 90-95% of the migrants can easily emmt.any qualification.t

ll migrants should be eligible for benefits of the foodestamp program,

standards estaBliehed by INS,In general, it would be more effectilie if the regulations were designed to certify

those who receive their income from farm operation' or from farm,amployment for entire12-month periods, and that the actual amount, of coupon allotment be determined'on a .

monthly basis, based upon the migrant's Jocose for the previous month, or his projected

income for the coming month. As migrant life varies very little from year to year, it

,should be re/atively easy with a high degree of accuracy to projectamonthly income

for the migrant applicant.

Section 274.3(a)The definition of major disaster should be redefined to include occurrences that

prevent migrant farmworkers from obtaining the normally expected amount of work. The

results of such disaster should not only be considered for the emergency determination

of eligibility during the actual disaster itself, but there oust be some regulatory,recognition of the fact that such's disaster will materially alter the migrant's incomefor the entire year. If such an occurrence denies the migrant work during a periodwhen he had a reasonable expectation of wokr, it is likely that the-major proportion

of his income will be lost for the entire year.

pP1141

I!gqi$11 priho'p

;If 1.4%1

iisfoo

III

r3

111;211

ti.ti

II ME

I fesinA0.12

Iti%

k 211tril1110,1I

tai;iig!alit

41.rdigi

,?

Q

.10a

gral

irdr

igli

ifiif

fElli

f01

1V11

1101

"111

ifhi

I L

Irl

iell

Igil

fee

rti"

WI

1140

111

glO

th.1

11iii

it!V

g7ri

gof

f.p-

0N

t--

Is.ilk

ilxv

"011

,iglis

qui

off

111.

1 ki

d1?

si.4

.

../1

KFt"

1111

1)-

1"4

1;11

11"

ig;4

11!I

li 12

0 'In

d! 1

411t

hisi

kkiii

iri

f 8

1111

541:

1111

4111

1141

.11

-.1E

fgr

iz.

bury

P: 2

-I.

ES-

gi

161

sz

lilgt

1[14

51sg

edig

hl41

431

FL§

9115

1 I

r114

1"Il

i-i

rapf

lPita

lor

heig

;lyII

.1

lien/

gi E

lg

ON

Ef

gliq

g10

:IV

ION

91iii

lliti-

9411

111i

1111

11-$

1.!

litiq

pit

igiti

Orl

i11

11p

1'61

40 P

.-

thin

r

serw

mia

livili

gm:1

091g

lifily

mpq

IIIM

DIN

VIN

PIN

IV11

11T

4401

1441

41:1

1011

.11

41i:

l%si

lligg

i014

0.14

;;Wir

eill4

401

10P

:1.4

1111

PliI

ON

PIA

IJ;!

4-11

1111

1191

11"

§1V

Rc.

"141

6'V

re'

FL3

-1 a

L.1

-11.

4lii

.a:M

.kili

etib

rihq

gli?

- hi

lt %

alit

Eif

ilJg

Atli

]F R

ini

1E1.

J:1'

i-11

E10

4515

1 D

EIN

I

V

00

I 1 Iligiri ilitittiviiiiq ir Illimiii ints1 i 411'1111 rsellyil gili 117111111iiflo

1 1 ; ;le II- If re =- -;IL ti 004 1111141111:161iii-12141Mbilltcm.

1 i filisillilvillilliiihivii11111111/121411311 riCC)

finial 11124s ig:41:142211:4!1!4:441111111111iilladlilliiiiilli1M11;iiiiliMi

1--t

8 lii 411piffillsill IT lijijilimilltifiligtfirel

lig 11114111AllgliATA Villivii111111 ishn /

511 4A42114'-i411111 1101112 T1:114',.1, i . il 11132411INg$11748

v 1°-14 211 Iliiilill

!;111111111""s-Pljill!ift.11111y1 te LAO::. WIPII.ivi4114110411 APPlpiA le ill is i$ IMP] II 1 In i ixi Pita le; Ilvi 1 11141 31 isl illA illil ii -eh Ivjg 431

160

Flia4 THE ornez OFmom= Art Ar SIEVEYRK, III, U.S.S.

IIRCet THE OFFICE orHONOlitBLE JAMBS G. otativt,

M. C.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: FOR low nu'ORMATION:

'Boren Chertkov Jim Harrison225-4538 225-8881 ,

FOR BELEM MAY 19, 1971

Reny of the men and wommx.who pick the food for America's

tables will finOtit difficult to Obtain food stamps et, they may share

in that abundance if pending U. S. Department of Agriculture regulations

are approved, according to the Chairmen of the two Congressional Committees

which deal with the problems of farmworkers.

Senator Adlai Stevenson, III, (D-I11), Chairman of the Senate

Subccendttee onMagrant Labor, and Representative Janes G. O'Hara (D-Mich),

Chairmen of the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Labor yesterday urged

the Department of Agriculture to reconsider and revise its proposed new

regulations for participation in the food stamp program. Stevenson and.

O'Hara urged particularly that steps should immediately be taken to-

institute a national food stamp certification and distribution program

for farmworkers, for whOn, they maid, "a nations.]. focus is essential."

In their criticisms of the pending regulations, the-two lawmakers

state0:"It is particularly ironic to discover that in the distribution of

food stamps the worker whose efforts Axe essential stn. availability of

fresh ffuits and vegetables will beidiocrininated against." '

"Few affirmative steps," their joint letter continued, "have

been taken to assurejn a positive way that migrant andaeasonal farmworkers

will receive full benefits of this program."/

-Text of the joint letter attached. .

1G2

Ifre JSMO$ '4 Springfield, Directorload Stamp Divisionload and Nutrition ServiceD.S. Depariamnt of AgricatureWashington, D.C. 20250

Dear Hr. Springfield*

As Chairmen respectively of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratorylabor and the Souse Subcommittee on Agricultural Labor, We are writing youto indicate our concern over the thrust of pending food stamp regulationsnow under consideration by the Department of Agriculture.

Neither. of has been Chairman of our respective Subcommittees for:vary long, but it does not akevery long to discover that in almost allfederal programs, the fax-worker is the last to be idequetely covered, orthe first to find that his eligibility for program benefits is limited indegree or duration. It is patticularly ironic to discoverthat in the

.distribution of of food stamps the worker whose efforts. are **maid.' to theavailability of fresh fruits And vegetables will.be.discrimivated'againetby the proposed vegulatinos.

We are-aware thatmathers have called your attention' to the flews inthe proposed regulations, particularly as they affect fermworkera. Inadequateconsideration appearn'to.have been given to the unique elements of the migrantway of.life..-their existence in rural areas, their constant mobility, andtheirexclueLon from existing social and worker benefit programs.

Issues which have especially been brought to our attention includethe emphasis on households as eligible units; -a term that is most difficultto Wino in view og the realities ofthe farmwotkees life style; therequirements for detailed documentation and verification, of earnings...4ninappropriatemlasuro formigrant faremorkers with sporadic and unpredictable

. earnings engaged in loasonal work; the continued,empheois on discriminatoryresidence xequirmmonts; and, emantetrativo procgdures for certification,establiabit.g and maintaining eligibility, and fair hearing and appealprocedures that lack time oonsiderations applicable to a mobile population.

163

162

These issues and others; 1411 undoubtedly oak* it difficult for thosepeople who need food stamp programs the most to obtain benefits. In fact,

it appears that'ley affirmative steps have bean taken to mere in apositive may that migrant and sessional farmworkers will receive full benefits

of this program.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, and the widespread hunger ,

and malnutrition that charactdrizes this element of the nation's work force,we urge tho following course of actions ,

1. A special task force with a significant representation of migisniand seasonal farcuorkers should be establiehed to study hheextent to which benefits of the food atump proaraut *remadeavailable to migrant end sessional. fatroorkera. The task force A

should be dircctdd to report back within 90 days with auggestions.for improvises the delivery of food stamp program benefits to

farrworkere; and, .

2. Steps should immodiataly be takon to establish a national foodstamp certification and distribution program for farmorkers.Such a national focus is essential, for the migrant fermworkorin particular is constantly on the -move to obtain employmont, 'living either temporarily or permanent* in a hostile environment,and excludcd from programa.

We urgo that you rake a eireful study of our objections and proposals,as well as suggestions Which you may have received from organizations whohave a,working familiarity and expertLso with the needs'of tho migrant sadsoasonal fercworker. In view of the ocriouancss of thin matter,,and Ourxespoetive Subcommittees' interest in continuing our investigation into theadequhey of our nation's food'programo as they affect faimmorkers, yourimmediate attcntion,to thesi issues will be gmiatlrappreciated.

Sincerely,

es.

441ai E. Steveneon III, Chairman °Subtormittee°on Migratory Labor

40

James C. O'Mara, ChairmanSubcommittee on Agricultural Labor

164

,c)

OkkiCE OF ECONOMIC

3PORTUil8TY,

ExEOuTiWX Or OloT OF TiiiPIRLSIDT.NTWASMINGTION, D. C. 20506

. 4.

Mr, ..ianes X. Springfield) DirectorFood Stamp 'Division

Food and Nutrition s.riiceU. S. Department of AgricultureWashington,. D. C. 20250

Dear-Mr. Sptler.6111d:

Thank you for the opportunity to commit on the proposefl regulation*governing the operation `of the load Stamp Program under the Tawstaeodatents to 'the Toed Stamp Act,

Our cater; is that*Iny fartimorkeis may not b_ e .obIe to 'benefit frogthe food stamp pre-grim, because sevaral'of the draft 'regulations.mitten with the SeegrePhicel* stable, urban poor in mind) would.Unintentional* exclude many formorkors from participation.

TheCost reliable data available indicateartba.t there are approxis:mately.5,500,400 people in famanarker female* of whole 18000000ore In migratory farm,orker. familial. Their houtiehold income(including the mount that foFtmete ones manage to earn fr,onnetraegrcculturel labor to supplement *lir farinwork wages) averages'less than $2,200'annuilly. Consequently, they would clearly Monett.tuts a. large Segment of the, populetion for ''whets the food stampbenefits snare enacted. s

The specific provisions of the propined regulatione which would tendto. deny benefits to farmworloars or which would crasta obstacles to

if their fat participation in the program are enumerated in the ettothadmocuarandilm. In each cm we km summarized the prohisat and havesuggested language modifteation remedy the situation.

It ia with some misgiving:.' however) that we have commuted on thedraft regulations ad seriatim. ltis our couvictickttat a systemwhich depende on State 0.Wcannot edentate* serve people when*livelihood renuirti-them to Move agrees-State lima with greeterIrequency thet normal processing-pen acComodate.; The only plate,itrong the d'5fatft.41taulatiOns whore any group is singlad out forparti'cularixed;triateent is 271,4(a)(4)(iii)(4). which :peaks to< .

trelvanoentWCert(fication of famastrkars. We infer, then) that* -USDA is anapOirered eo extend that particularizatiok VOYend eirtifteS4cation time to other aspects of the Food Stamp Program.

,J.

At. James E. SpringfieldPegg 2

A,

4ccordingly, Ws illiquid like to recommend in the strongest possible.' 41.. terms that USIA Consider-developing separate national rood Stamp':

:Plan forlarmworkersa which would operate_for the benefit of tam,workers withoat regard to State or. county lines..'

Thank you in sdvaf nce for your consideration. 011should bemrattifulfor an opportunity to discuss these recemmendetions verbally if oureffort* to ba;brief have rendered OuriOggastions unclear orunconvincing.

Ruth 6ravasDirectorMigrant Division-

Enclosure

ei.400')74$'0

166

*

,PROBLEMS POSED FOR FARM:0=M IN THE PROPOSED BECULAT/ONSIN THE FOOD STAMP rmmot

Section 2704 - Definitions

A. 270,;2(dd)t,Definition :of "Household"

,PROBLEM: To save expels:3es* many farmworker families will shit,cooking facilities but do not cook.ar:aat together nt,in:any other way act as one family. Vat. a narrow:-'construction of the rule might render some suchfamilies ineligible for separate participation.

RECOMMIDATION: Amend the section by addition of.* new sentence:"FaMilies using the same cooking fecilitlei but notcooking together shall be regarded at constitutingseparate households."

B. 270.2(kk): Definition of "related"

CONCERN #1: .Relationship by compadrazco(godparenthood) is quitecameo among MeXican AMarican farmworkers and shoU14,be stipulated in the enumeration of relationships.

CONCERN #2: State plans should be.precluded from limiting the4110:44Teneee of Ole ionships based* affinity orin loeuparentis.

C.. /70(Ue): Definition of "student",

PROBLEM: An ambiguity about students' summer income has givenrice to different interpretations in different counties.

RECOMMENDATITI: Amend the section so that it would read:"Student means at individual who has net'reached his22nd birthday and-who is attending at least.balf.limeias defined by the institution, a grade, ichool,-,highschool, vocational school, technicai, school,.trainingprogram, college or university. Students on vacationin the *timer, between terms, or at other times desig-nated by the institution as official holidays or vacationperiods shall still be regarded es students."

II. Part 271, Participation of State Agencies and Eligible Households

A. -Section 271.1, General Terms and.Conditions for State Agencies

1. 271.1(a)(3)(i); _Commodities

\-PROBLEN: The poorest counties vill need both stamps and comma..ities because sometimes very poor families will not be able-toafford stamps (regulations and deduCtions preclude project areas?from certifying many very poor_farmworkers es eligible GO obtainstamps at no purchase price):

0._

167

RECOMMENDATION: Delete sutssub-sectlon (1)1

2., 271.164: Residency

PRODLMK: Many migrants have been unable to obtain food stampsbecause of the lack of intent to reside permanently within theState. The definition needs to be free of any language whichwould permit local inferences thitg temporary residents are tobe excluded.

RECOMMENDATION: Add to the section: 'Residence shall not be1r construed to mean domicile; and intent to permanentlyzwmain

in the state shall not be a condition of eligibility."

3. .271.1(6): Personnel Standards_

This section should be clarified to prohibit. States fromdenying certification to farmworkers.

4. 271.1(h): Administrative Financing

PROBLEM: A time lapse of 30 dayi after the initial inquiryconstitutes an unreasonable de;,05,* -The upahot for many migrantswho spend short times in several -Counties is that they neverreceive food stamp.

RECOMMENDATION: Add to the subSidetion: ."Applicants frommigratory fermworkor households shall be served in no leisthan 5 days from the receipt of the Application for Partialspation."

5. 271.1(N): Outreach .

PROBLEMS: (a) Mang farmworkers are Spanish - speaking and donot understand, such less read, Eeglieh.

(b) SerVides only from Federally - funded organizationsmay result in less then full participation inthe Food. Stamp program by eligible £armworkerhouseholds, which frequently can only be reachedthrough informal means, by groups without Federalfunds.

RECOMMENDATIONS: (a) Regulations should be drafted to requireoutreach operations in areas with a substantialnumber of Spanishspeaking poor people to utilizehi- lingual materials and hi-lingual outreachstaff,

148

167

2714,1(k): Outreach Coned.

RECOMMEATIOZIS: Cored.

(6). Regulations should strongly encourageState agencies and their local offices to -availthaumelVes of the services of group* and erg:intonations that may not receive -any form of Federallundius, the Migrant Ministry) localorganisations designed to assist farmworkers,organization* composed of farnworkers themselves,etc.

6. 271.1(n): Notice of Adverse Action. Subsection (3); "Requestfor conference."

RECTeSISSDATIM The regulatiowsbould guars:atm:that the'requcet can be made simply by an oral declaration of suchdesire or chocking a boson the notice of the proposedtermination.

.

7.: 271.1(o); Fair PearinF

PROBLEMS: (a) Time. By using its full allotted time underthis provision (60 days), st state agency couldin effect frustrate the purpose of this Act,for most migrants do not remain in the iameproject area for more than 3-5 weeks.

(b) Status pending tearin. If food stamps aredenied pending A bearing, migrants whose :Mgt-bility is questioned :All be denied the program'sbenefits. Even if the hearing decides in. the'household's favor, the letter may already be outof state and unlocatable.

RECOMATATIONS; (a) The time limitation for obtaining a fairbearing and its result should be reduced to 10working days maximum (this id consistent with271.1(o), subsection,(3), which, stipulates thatthe hearing is to bo held at the household's.convenience.

(b) When asking for i hearing, the household shouldbe pormitte4 to,00ntinuo in the program:pendingdetermination by the hear*.

169

168

- 4

8. 271.140):'Credit for Lost Benefits

RECOMENDATION: Provision should be made so that the creditsfor lost benofitsviI1 be tranefotred to another county orstate when the hoosohold novas.

06U. section 271.3, Bousehold Bligi5ilitv

I. 271.3(e): Bouschold

PROBLEM: (same problem explained in response to 270.2(dd) )

RECOME,ENBATION: Add to aocond'sentonce between "quarters"and "shall": "...and . who share kitchen facilities, cook,est, and purchase food togothor."

2. 271.3(b): Income and Resource Elielhi/ity standards

PROBLEM: Tarmworkors most often cannot provide documentaryevidence of exactly how much they earn: rarely do growersprovide farmworkers with withhol4ing stubs or payslipfrequently employers make deductions from gross pay for roand utilities in grower housing in which familial; are requiredto livo in order to keep their job. Given the data that theaverage income of a fermworker family of four is less than 0$2,200 per year for thooc who aupplecont their income withnot- agricultural labor during the off season and $800 peryear for those who do not, very few formoorkors are in factineligible for the food stamp program.

P.E.COIRMNDATION: Migrants and other soosonallremployed farm-morkers ohould be regarded as automatically covered and eligiblefor benefits of the food stamp program upon application andShould pot be denied benefits without concrete oVideoce by Itstate agency showing ineligibility. (This recommendation alsoapplies to'the verification of incomajrovision in 271.4(4(i1.1).)

3.. 271.3(b)(1)(ii)(a): (Exclusion of dependent children'a income)

RECOMMENDATION: The ago ceiling should be changed from the18th birthday to the 22nd birthday.

4. 271.3(b)(11(iii)-Proposiod new sub- sub - section on hardshipdeductions

0

monnm: hardship deductions are permitted in some states andnot in othors. Nona would be allowable under tho proposedregulations. The following suggastod now sub- sections incorporats those hardship deductions:

170

169

- 5

nif

4. 271.3(b)(1)(iii) 0onttd.

RECOEVZIOAT/ON: The followi flew Live-sub-sub-sectiono: ,

(f) Cbsts of transportation related to work or seeking work:and of other-expenses rolatcd to work (such As rcquiredwork clothing or uniforma).0hieh exceed. $15 a menth..

(R) Earnings saved -for the future edutation'of dependentChildron, or for work training, for adults.

(h) The,paytents for nursing cue for a,thembir of the bnueehold when necessary for a household member to accept orto continue work.,

- . . .

(i) Payments made for the support of-el:Indica not livingwith the housohol4.

(j) Repayments of debts exceeding $10 monthly payments.

5. 271.3 (IQ(iv): Pioration

PROBLEMS: a. Although proration was desisted as protectivedevice for eligible houueholds with unevenearning pattIVAdi farmtorkora may be penalized,in the sena* of having to spend more for fobdstamps than they would without the proration,during tho off.seaaot when they 400:thcretampsmost.

b. The statute limits the validity of certificationwhen the household crossos state lines to,60,dayt, which in effect moans that migrants wouldhave to renegotiate the application processalmost every time they move with the crops.

RECOMMENDATIONS;a. Regulations should be drawn to ensure that earnings

in one period do not cause UP:workers and unfair /reduction of benefits during 'those montha whenthere is no work available. state agouties ohouldbe roquired to calculate benefits both ways (withand without proration) and to then permit thehousehold to select the method it finds preferable.

b. Provision should be undo to automatically renewcertification on the basis of the proration formulaeach time the household changes jurisdiction foran additional 60 days.

1314

170

6._271.3(11.1 Work Registration

PROBLEM: No consideration has Boca gi4ento the unique elements. in the migrant way of Life.. rarmworkers might register' for workone week bit find temporary,farmiworkWhilnhiC.applicatien ispending with the local employment agency (anOtWeensequently

. does not ever report for an interview whictLiventuatie)".

RECOMNDATION: Waive requirements for i0oryievio for farmworker applicants during the growing season..'

7. .271.3(d)(2)s Incliaihility

Procedures and groundrules under which a State agency candetermine a household to be ineligible should be spelledout in detail in.theso regulations*

8. 271.3(9(2)(ii); Continuity of ineljibility

,,IIECOMFAIDATION: Change "one year" to "al= months."

9. 271.3(d)(9(1v):(piotancs)

RECOMMENaTION: In line 4, change "or expected to be used"to "or what the applicant expotts to be able to see*"

C. Section 271.4, Certification of Household

1. 271.4(2) Q.A.1): Verification of Timm

PROBLEM: This provision is the moat punitive inite tendencyto rclude migrant and other farmworkero frompenefiting fromthe:food stamp program. Moot farmworkers will not be able 0doeUment income, and no alternative, arc provided.vben writtendocumentation is not available. Docent practice is for Stateagencies to call grower/employers or the Vara Labor Service forestimates of average farmworker incomes in the area. Sincegrowers are not always cooperative, and since. legislationinsuring accurate pay record* are not generally enforced, mostformworkers will be denied benefits if the verification-egoincome requirement it strictly applied to them. The statutepermits certification by affidavit (with checking a random

.

sample), but the now guidelines only permit byaffidavit for public assistance households. .

RECOMEMATIOS: Simplify certification procedures foi dVeryone,but incorporate the etipulation7that farmworkers shall in allcases be certified by affidavit*

17"

171

271.4M1 Application Processing

2ROBlEMS: a. AllowingStates to establish 30.day ',sitingporioda would deny may migrants the benefitof the pregram.

b. Ihnregulations as currently writton provideno incentive for welfare dopartmento to hireadditional staff when'the case load is:hteVyOven though USDA pays 6274 of the coat ofcertification staff).:

RECOMMEXDATIOVIS:a. Sothic° processing time from "0 days"to

"10 days." :

b. Provide for emergency certification of farm -workers when they are away from their homebase without all tho forms, applications, .

verifications, ate.

3. 271.4 4 d Certifibition rieriodo for farmvorknr

PRODLEK: This provision permits 12-month certification, butit does not allow for intcrchangebility of certificationbetweon commodity and food stamp counties nor among countieswithin a state nor'between Statos.

RECOMMENDATION: Stipulate that ceitificetion issued in onecounty for food stamps is valid in any other county or Statefor food stamps and/or commodities.

4. 271.401(6): certification Continuation..

PROBLEM: 'Eligibility standards for commodities are stillnotparaVel to those for stamps.

RECOMIF.IMATION: Chang* this sub- section to read: "C timethe certification for 60 days of any household whichcertified as eligible in one food stamp or commodity c vb.,

butioa arcs and moves to another food stamp or commoditydistribution project area.

173.

172

In. Part 274 Emergencv rood DurinR Di-casters

276.6 - Duration

MODLCM: ,Ucaults:of.disnators (pith as that one declared -byPresident in Wircil for South Florida) Affecting farmworksre lastlong after the emergency itself, for the disaster will necessarilyaltar ths-farmworkare income for the outivt-yefir.:RECCSICNDATION: The regulations should stipulate that if disasterscourt*, lost of employment for farmworkers, than the duration of cacti.gency food assistance for farmoorkors should bo extended automaticallyuntil agricultural employment e ditibna roturn'to

apre

7dieastor levels.

174

173

May 21, 1971

lir.'jsmas 7. SpringfieldDirootor, Food Stamp DivisionFood and Nutrition Service,Department of AgricultureVashington, D.C. 20250

Dear Mr. Springfield)

Am you say 'be *Vara, the Office of thesecreteryin DEW includes asOffice for Special Concerns:0SC). The OSCis charged by the Secretarywith providing an advocacy focus for the interests. of the minoritiesand the disadvantaged. .

.

Migrant and allaional fermeorkers, among the netionq most severely.disadvantaged members arson(' of OSC's prime constituents. In orderto infurerepresontation one advocacy of their intereate, OSC attempts,among other things, toAnialyse and comment upon proposed legislativeand administrative initiatives.

It was in light of above that I have analysed and subsequently sitcom-slauded,cartnin..chsnottivin the proposed Food Stine Regulations. Forthe migrant and seasonal formuorkar, the Food $tcmp.2cgulatious may

-Vaal represent the not important Federal Certainly,the health and welfare of at least his children will in Many cases be

.eoditioned on the ability of this legulatiOn program to embody aresponse to his needs.

I Sincerely hope that the resommisdations will be carefully sonsiderod.If you desire clarification or disceSsion'of eny,aspect of, tilt documentplease feellret.to contact rwm personally or Hr.'TdekUridele.Xxt, 13-22351,

of my staff.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Cooke, Jr.Director, Office- of Special ConcernsOffice of the Assistant Secretaryfor.Planoingand Evaluation

Incloassecc: Honorable enact b. Fichardsion

Secretary, DHSSHonorable Clifford H. HardinSecretary of AgricultureHr. Lewis N. Butler

$11261 l7 - 73 39 175

174

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

A. PART 270 - GEkRAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS4

I. SECTION 270.2- DEFINITIONS

a. 270.2(u): "Firm"

"Firm" means a retail, food store or a wholesale fOod concern."

RECOMENDATION 1:

aka

kok,

STORES AND COOPERATIVES OPERATED 'BY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ANDCONSUMER GROUPS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION.

b. 270.2(dd): "Household"

"Household" means a group of persons, excluding roomers andboarders as defined in this section, who are not residents ofan institution or boardinghouse, and who are living al oneeconomic Unit sharing common cooking facilities and for whomfood is customarily purchased incommon: ProVided, That:-

/.(1)When all, persons in the group are under 60 years of age,

they are all related to each other;

(2)'When more than one of the perions in the group ii under60 years of age, and one or more other,persons in thegroup is 60 years of age.or olderi.eacb of the persons

.under 60 years of age is related to each other or to atlei* one of the persons who is 60 years of age orolder.

It shall also mean (i) a single individual living alone whopurchases and prepares food for, home consumption, or (ii) an

'elderly petson as defined in this section. ,

RECOMMENDATION 2:

THE DEFINITION SHOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT FAMILY UNITS SHARINGTHE SAME COOKING FACILITIES, AS IN ATARM tam CAMP, BUT NOT COOK.INC TOGETHER ARE TO HE CONSIDERED SITAIIATE HOUSEHOLDS.

1 6

175

"Related".means a'relationship by blood, affinity, or througha legal.relationship sanctioned by State law. Persons shallalso be deemed to be related they are legally adopted.children, legally assigned foster children, or other childr,cnunder th& age of 18,,wh_en an adult member (over age,...18) of the

household acts in loco parentis to such 'Children.

RECOMMENDATION

THE DEE1N'ITION SHOULD Q,LEARLY INDICATE THAT BLOOD RELATIONSHiPSSUCH AS GRANDPARENTS- GRANDCHILD, UNCLE-NEPHEW, ETC. ARE INCLUDED.DUE TO AN AVERAGE LIFE. SPAN OF 50 YEARS, EXTREMELY LOW INCOME,POOR ADULT HEALTH STATUS, NATION'S HIGHEST OCCUPATIONAL. ACCIDENTRATE, MIGRANTS ARE OFTEN FORCED TO LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN WITH RE-LATED ADULTS.

RECOMMENDATION 4:

THE DEFINITION OF "ADOPTION" SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY BROAD SO AS ToINCLUDE THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE A CHILD IS NOT. LEGALLY ADOPTED BUT

IS LIVING WITH AND DEPENDENT UPON AN UNRELATED ADULT FOR MORE THAN

50% OP NITS SUPPORT. FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN RECOMMENDATION 3

AND THE GODPARENT SYSTEM, (AMONG SPANISH SPEAKING MIGRANTS PARTICU-LARLY), MIGRANT CHILDREN OFTEN LIVE WITH ADULTS TO WHOM BY BLOOD OR

OTHERWISE THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY BELATED.

RECOMMENDATION 5:

A DETERMINATION OF 11ARRIAGESHOULD INCLUDE RELATIONSHIPS WHERE THE

.PARTIES*WENIf THROUGH A MARRIAGE CEREMONY IN GOOD FAITH AS DEFINEDIN SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, SEC. 216(h)(1)(13).

d. 270.2(11): "Retail Food Store:

"Retail/ food store" means an establishment, including a recog-nized department thereof, of a house-to-house trade route whichsells eligible food to households for home consumption, or anonprofit meal delivery service as defined in paragraph (ee) of

this section.

RECOM:InNTION 6:

THE DEFINITION SHOULD INCLUDE STORES AND COOPERATIVES OPERATED BYNON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND CONSUMER GROUPS.

0

177

e. 270.200: "Student"

"Student" means.an individual who if attending at least halftime, as defined by the institution, a grade school, lighschool, vocational...011,1P1 ..tachnical school,_ training program,.College or university.

RECOMMENDATTON 7:

THE DEFINITION SHOULD.= FLEXIBLE' ENOUGH TO INCLUDE PERSONS TAKINGREMEDIAL TRAINING IN SUCH AREAS AS ENGLISH AS A FIRST LANGUAGE,READING, WRITING, ETC., SO LONG'AS THIS TRAINING.IS DESIGNED TO IN-PROVE THE INDIVIDUALS ABILITY TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT,

RECOMMENDATION 8:

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SHOULD DE DEFINED BROADLY TO INCLUDE THOSE WHO ARESTUDYING PART-TIME. BY REDUCING THE HALF-TIME ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTTO 6 OR MORE CREDIT HOURS PER WEEK, THE REGULATIONS WOULD BE'CON-SISTENT WU% THE PROPOSED PROVISIONS OF 'THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE. PROGRAM,NOW BEING CONSIDERED IN CTERESS.

2. SECTION 270.5 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

a. 270.5....wersofFNS°:,

FNS shall have the power to :.

(1) Determine the amount of any claim;

(2) Settler and adjust any claim; and

(3) Compromise or deny all or part of any such claim arisingunder the provisiona of this subchapter. *

RECOMMENDATIOW9

CLAIMS DECISIONS By THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (P.N.S.) SHOULDBE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

0.

1:7, 8

PART 271 - PARTICIPATION OF' STATE AGENCIES AND ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

1. SECTION 271.1 - GEVERAL.TERMS ANDCONDITICNS FOR STATE AGENCIES.

a. 27L1(a);\ FEDERALLY DONATED FOODS-4

In Areas Where tha,k-ogri.s,-in-oPeration, there shall. be no4stributith of federally- donated foods.to households, exceptthat distribution. may be model

)

. ...

(1) During temptirery emergency situations when ;FNS determideS.that come-x.41ml channels of feed distribution` have, been'disrupted; '

.

(2) gorbsuch period of time as FNS determineS4, not to exceed:'3 months, upon request of aStAte agency and submission Oflacts Wsuch State agency showing that such a period isnecessary in orde,to effect an Orderly transition in an.area in which the diatributiph of federally -donated foodsT to lioubeholds is being replaced by kprOgr I or,

(3)- On request of the State agency, Provided, Thai-

(i) No Deportment funds are .used in carrying ou i.the:Statdagency!s.administrative responaibilities in,the handling,and issuing of federally-donated foods.;

(ii) Certification of alIfilousehOlds' is made' by the. Stateagency in:ConforAity.with the kequirelifttsof this sub-chapter; and,:' ''N17

(iii) Controls are established Which will xreyeht any house.,hold from participating in the program and: also simultaAouslyreceiving hoUsehold distribution of federally7donated foods.

RECOMMENDATION JO:

THIS SECTION SHOULD BE REVISED TO PROVIDE FOR:

r

I

. ... ,I, . .

'A - SPECIAL CERTIFICATION WHIgCH WILL BE INTERCHANGEABLp BETWEEN, COMMODITY

... AND FOOD STAMP COUNTIES; 1 ..

DISTRIBUTION OP rooD8 TO HOUSEHOIS TEMPORARILY RESIO1NON AN-AREA -i,-

. .

.

IF DETERMINATIONOF INITIAL;OR CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY HAS-%NOTVEEN-MADE-.1N-ONEYEE: AND

- PERMITTING THE USE OF D.S.D,A, FUNDS TO COVER.OSTS OF ADMINISTER-- ING FEDERALLY DONATED FOODS IN COUNTIES WIIICHttOST NEED A DUAL'PROGRAM.PROGRMI

MIGRANT INTER-COUNTY AND INTER-STATE,MOBILITY,IND $HORT.STAYS INMANI DIFFERENT POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS SO COMPLICATE ELIGIBILITYDETERMINATIONS THAT BOTH-P0OP-ETAWS-AND C&AMODITIES WILL,BECOMEINACCESSIBLE, elF SPECIAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT MADE:-

b. 271.1(e): RESIDENCY -

No citizenship:xi4uration4rPaidency requirement'ahal be im-pOsed-as.-a condition of eligih'41ity by any. State or prdjeCt. area.

RECONNRNDATI(N 11:'

*TUISSECTION SHOULD BE CHANGEl40 THAT THERE ts NO RESIDENCY REQUIRE-NENT OTHER THAN THAT THE AFFLiCANT HAVE HOUSING IN THE. PROJECT AREA(COUNTY),,; THE ,REGULATION AS4OPOSED WILL ALLOW STATES AND _LOCALITIES

Aldrpoosvm'itINTENT TO RESTQE REQUIREMENT AS IN MEDICAID, LEADING TOMIGRANT DISQUALIFICATION. BECAUSE OF THEIR STAY. OR.A TEMPORARY PURPOSE.

.

c. 271.1(h) :.,.ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCING

Except as provided int 271.2, each State agency shall financeor cause tobc financed, from funds available to the State orpolitical subdivisions thereof, the costs of carrying out theadministtablivp responsibilities assigned to it under the pro-visions of thts subchapter, including providing adequate staffand fund pg to process applicant households within 30 days oftecpi'W the cempleteAppiication forParticipation.,

RECOMMENDATIOli,J2:

POLICY GUIDES.ANn REGULATIONS..0N "ADEQUATE STAFF" SHOULD SPECIFIGALLY.PROVIDE THAT;

THE RACIAL AND'ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE STAFF REFLECT THE RACIAL-AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE ELIGIBLE POPULATION;.

- ALL SUBPROFESSIOALS-BE HIRED. FROM THE.ELIGIBLE POPULATION;

a

0- SUBFROFESSIONALS

410:

BE GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.Als1 CAIUZR ADVANCEMENT; AND

0 .

- A DETAILED ptscairftoN OF THE AVE BE REQUIRED IN EACH STATE PLAN.

180.

gj...11(h): OUTREACH

Eadh State agency shall establish effective action Ilurthant toan approved plan, Using.Statd7agency perbodnel and the services

.provided by other -federally-funded-agencies and organizations,to, inform lowe-inceme households concerning the.svailability and

benefits of the Prigrairald-rasu-re the 'participation Of eligiblehouseholds:

RECOMIENDATION 13:

POLICY GUIDES.ANDTEGULATIONS ON "OUTREACH" SHOULD SPECIFICALLY PRO-"VIDE THATT---

* - THE RACIAL AND:ENNIC COMPOSITION OF THE STAFF REFLECT THE RACIAL':AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE ELIGIBLE POPULATION; 4.

. .44

-IALL SUBPROFESSIONALS BE HIRED FROM THE ELIGIBLE POPULA ICV;

- EXTENSIVE USE. BE MADE OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS WHEN,TIJE °MAUORITY OF,

THEIR MEMBERSHIP IS COMPOSED Or ELIGIBLE PERSONS, OR THEY FULFILLAN ADVOCACY FUNCTION FOR ELIGIBLE PERSONS (e.g., MIGRANT MINISTRY).

-.A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ABOVE BE RigUIRED 'IN EACU STATE PLAN.

e. 271.1(0'(3): NOTICE OF ADVERB,ACTION.- state agency /householdconference

,

*If within the advance .notice period, an individfial representing,_the household responds by -indicating the household's wish for''aState agency conference, the'State agency shall provide'an:oppor=tunity for the houdehold to: A

(i)Discusd the situation with the State agency staff;

.(i4)1Speak for itself, or be represented by legal counsel, aFiend, or other- spokesmen;

(iii) Obtain an explanation 'of the proposed.actiOn; and

o(iv) Present information to show that the proposed action isincorrect.

RECOMNDATTON 14:, (t.

IINCLUDED IN THE EXPLANATION-,0 THE HOUSEHOLD'S'RIGHTTO:UQUEST A CON-FERENCE SHOULD BE THE GUAANTEE-THAT S,REQUEST,CAP.BE:MAD-§IPLY'ByAN ORAL DECLARATION OR BY CHECKINC,A i THE NOTICE OF PROPOSEDTERMINATION.

.

J80

-7-

. 2W1:i(0)t FAIR HEARING

Each State agency shall provide any household, aggrievedby the action of the State agency or a State issuing agencyin its -administration,.tif the program which affect le par-ticipation of the houSehold. in the program, witka,..f r hear-ing. Prompt, definitiraT-mad-final administrativ xactien mustbe taken by the State agency within 60.days from gd date.of arequest for a hearing. Households shall be free t request ahearing on any State agency or State issuimeagenc action withwhich they are dissatisfied. :

-RECOMMEND-AT= 15:

THE TIME LIMITATION FOR OBTAINING A FAIR HEARING AND ITS RESULTSSHOULD BE 10 WORKING DAYS; A 60zDAY LIMITATION EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVESMIGRANT'FARMWORKERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING. THIS IS..IN

. KEEPING WITH SECTION 271.1(o)(3), WHICH RULES.THAT THE HEARING-WILLBE. MELD AT THE CONVENIENCE. OF THE HOUSEHOLD IN TIM, PLACE AND DATE..IN MOST AREAS WHERE MIGRANTS WORK, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THEY .:

WOULD BE IN ANY ONE PROJECT AREA FOR MORE THAN 60 DAYS.. INDEED, THEYOFTEN STAY IN A'GIVEN AREA POk ONLY.TWO. OR THREE WEEKS, AND USUALLYAT NOST FOR FIVE WEEKS: BY. USING ITS FULL ALLOTTED TIME UNDER THESE

C('

REGULATIONS, A:STATE AGENCY COULD,. TN EFFECT, FRUSTRATE. THE ENTIREPURPOSE OF THE ACT AND DENY MIGRANTS THE BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM.

:.

RECO:VENDATION 16:

WHEN ASKING FOR AFFAIR HEARING, THE HOUSEHOLD SHOULD. BE ALLOWED TOe, CONTINUE IN THE PROGRAM ON THE SAME. BASIS AS PREVIOUS TOTHE REQUEST

,FOR A FAIR HEARING. ,UNDER THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, A FAMILY WOULDBE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE DURING THE APPEAL--UP TO 60 DAYS.

g. 271.1(p): CREDITS FOR LOST BENEFITS

-if it has been determined that a household has been improperly-denied participation in the program and thereby the benefits ofthe program, the State agency shall determine the amount of thefree coupons denied, and. shall establish a credit account againstState-agency funds for the household in that,ameunt.

RECOMMENDATION 17:

THE CREDITS FOR LOST BENEFITS SHOULD BE TRANSFERRABLE TO ANOTHER COUNlYOR STATE.; THE MOBILE, SHORT DURATION STAY, INTER-COUNTY OR INTER-STATEMIGRANT WILL RECEIVE NO BENEFIT FROM pas PROVISION IF TRANSFERRABiLITYIS NOT PERMITTED.'

RECOMMNDATION 18:

FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST,1 YEAR THE STATE AGENCY SHOULD MATNPAIN,AND MAlC3 AVAILABLE TO THE RESPECTIVE HOUSEHOLD, ALL CREDIT ACCOUNTS,EVEN IF THE HOUSEHOLD HAS MOVED OUf'OFTHE PROJECT AREA.

2. SECTION 271.3 HOUSEMOLDWLICIRT,LITY-_ -

a. 271.3(a).:' HOUSEHOLD (as the-eligible participant). .

Eligibility for and participation:in the program shall be onhousehold basis..--All -persons, excluding rCOMer'S-and boarders,resid.0.18 -in common living quarters*-.shall ilmrconsolidated into

4* a group prior to determining if such a group is a househOld asdefined in § 270.2(dd) of this subchapter. All related persons.

. in a group which qualifies as a household shall be consi,dered,members of the household

RECOMMENDATION 19:..

THE PHRASE* "AND WHO SHARE KITCHEN FACIT,ITIES, COOK, EAT AND PURCHASEFOOD' METRE-RH SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE SECOND SENTENCE. THIS WILL ALLOW.SEPARATE FAMILY UNITS TO BE CERTIFIED AS SEPARATEUSEHOLDS WHEN FORCEDTO SmAur pACTIATIES-(e.g. FARM LABOR CAMP KITCHEMS)-.

b. 271.3(b)(1).(ti)(a): DEFINITION OF INCOME - exclusions

(ii) The following shall not be cOnsidered-incotne to the household:

(a) Income received as compensation for personal servicesor income from self-employment by'a dependent child.rest-d'-ing.with the. household who is a student and who has not '

attained his 18th birthday; (underlining supplied)

RECOMNENb/TION 20:

4 ,... . .....

INCOME EARNED BY A DEPENDENT CHILD WHO IS A STUDENT SHOULD NOT DECOUNTED' AS HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNTIL HIS 22nd RATHER THAN 18th BIRTHDAY.

RECOMMENDATION 21: h.

ASSISTANCE RECEIVED FOR THE PURPDSE' OF EMERGENCY PURCHASING'OF FOODgSTAIHIS-OR FOOD SHOULD DE ADDED'TO THE LIST OF ITEMS. NOT TO SE.CONrSIDERED INCOME TO THE HOUSEHOLD.

183

0

O

182

- 10 -

e. 271.3(b)(1)(ivl: DEFINITION OF INCCCE - cyclical or seasonalincome

Income received on lecyclial or seasonal basis shall, if it isto the households advantage, lig prorated evenly or unevenly overa period not to exceed 12 months, or_averaged einra-lesser periodof time in orderterthie monthly incOmTfor use in determina-tion of eligibility and basis of coupon issuance.

RECOM=DATION 24:

THE SECTION SHOULD BE REWORDED.TO CLEARLY INDICATE 'THAT INCOME WILLBE PRORIIED.WHEN THE ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD DECIDES THAT IT -TS TO ITSABVANTAGE. THIS OF COURSE WOULD REQUIRE THAT ADEQUATE INFORMATIONBE FURNISHED THE FAMILY AS TO. ITS VARIOUS OPTIONS.

RECO4MCNDATION 25:

ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR PRORATED, LONG-TERM CERTIFICATION TO BEACROSS COUNTY 'AND STATE LINES WHEN, AS WITH MIGRANTS, THE FAMILYROVES. CERTIFICATION SHOULD BE FOR BOTH COMMODITIES AND,FCOD STAMPS.THIS WILL REQUIRE THE ESTALISHMENT OF NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY STANDARDSFOR VOMODITIES.

f. 271.3 b 3 ii RESOURCE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS - EXCLUSIONSFROM RESOURCES

RECOMMENDATION 26:

SAVINGS. WHICH ARE DESIGNATED FOR.THE FUTURE EDUCATION OF DEPENDENTCHILDREN OR FOR THE WORK-RELATED TRAINING OF AdeLTS SHOULD BE INCLUDEDAS ALLOWABLE EXCLUSIONS FROM RESOURCES.

g. 271.3(d).: WORK REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

At the time of application, and at the time of each recertificationof eligibility, for participation in the program by any household,'each able- bodied person between-the ages or 18 and 654 who is amember of the household (except mothers or ether members of thehousehold who have responsibility for the care of dependent children.under 18 years of age or of incapacitated adults; Students enrolled,at least half-time in any schobl'Or training program recognized byany Vederal.-State or local governmental agency;_or persons workingat least 30 hours per week shall register foremployment by (=mut-ing the registration fen:I-Which shall be providedby the StaleAgency, and which the State agency shall forward to the State or

Federal employment office' having jurisdiction ,over the area where-ehe 'registrant resideS.' e .

183

'RECOMMENDATION 27:

MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLDS DERIVING THE MAJOR PART OF THEIR INCOME FROMFARM OPERATIONS OR FARM IMPLOYMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERA-TION AND NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE REQUIREIITO REGISTER FOR WORK IF THEYARE WORKING 30 HOURS OR LESS A WEEK. BECAUSE. OF INCLEMENT WEATHER,EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWNS, /ATE IrrPIMIXO-ar A CROP, ETC:,':FARMWORKERS OFTENARE REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NEITHER WORKING OF. COM-PENSATED FOR LOST TINE.

. .

h. 271.3(8)(2): WORK REG/MA=70N REQUIREMENT - failure to showgood copse fob- compliance

If the State agency determines that a household member has refusedwithout good cause to comply with the requirements of this para-graph, the household of which he is a member,shall be ineligible_ towrticipate in the program. such inelgibility shall continue:

RECOMMENDATION 28:

IF A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY IS DETERMINED TO BE WITHOUT."GOOD CAUSE," ONLY THAT HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, AND NOT THE ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD,SHOULD BE DECLARED INELIGIBLE FOR PROGRAM BENEFITS.

6

RECOMMENDATION 29:

THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES BY WHICH A STATE AGENCY CAN DETERMINE ANINDIVIDUAL OR HOUSEHOLD WITHOUT "GOOD'CAUSE" SHOULD BE SPELLED OUTBYUSDA.

i. 271.3(d)(2)(ii): WORK REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT - period of house-41old ineligibility for failure to show good cause.

For 1 year from the date of his refusal without good cause to com-ply with such requirements, whichever is earlier.

RECOMMENDATION 30:

THE PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY _SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM 1 YEAR TO G MONTHS.THE LANGUAGE AND "CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MOST MIGRATORYWORMRS.,-,AND MOST STATE AGENCIES CREATE A SITUATION READY-MADE FOH,CONFUSIONAND MISUNDERSTANDING, AND INCORRECT DECLARATIONS OF INELIGIBILITY,

j. -271.3(d)(3)(fy):. WORK REGISTRATION REQUIRE:TM' -'vfork. unsuitable,-

for oulloyment referral

The w6rk offered is at a site subject to a strike or A lockout atthe time of the offer.

185

...

184

12-

RECOMMENDATION 31:

THE DEFINITION OF "STRIKE." SHOULD EXPRESSLY INCLUDE LABOR DISPUTESIN TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT NOT COVERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONALLABOR,RELATIONS ACT, e.g. AGRICULTURE,: je

k. 271.11g).0.):_ lionuggpltkAuga,mmiTRITENTs criteria for deter=mining work suitability for registrant. -

The State ageney shall consider, the following criteOta in determin-ing whether employment offered is, for the purposcoOf this paragraph,suitable for tait-xpgistradt in question:

(i) The degree.of risk to the registrant's health and safety;

_(ii) The fitness of. the registrant both physical and mental toperform the employment offered as established by documentarymedical evidence, or reliable information obtained from other

tisources may be,used as a basis for this determination;

'

(iii) The duration of the registrant's unemployment. For exaMple,-a household member whose major occupational experience is in aspecialized field may be required to accept employment,'ss'e condi-tion of heznehold eligibility, in evdiff.rent field After the lapseof a reasonable' period of time of unemployMent during which it be-comes apparent that job opportunities in his major field of expertrence in the area are unlikely to be offered; and,

(iv) The distance of the employment from the registrant's residence.Determinations in this connection shall be based upon reasonableestimates of the time required for going to and from work by meansofltransportation that is available, or expected to be used, andwhether or not it would be reasonable for the registrant to expendthe time andCost involved for the expected remuneration from thework. In no, event shall commuting time per day represent morethan 25 ver Centum of the registrant's total work time. (Under-

supplied.)

'Ificonci6ArroN

UNIFORM MINIMUM FEDERAL STANDARD,SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED WHERE APPROPRIATE, e.g.. IN THE AREA OF OCCUPAtitiNAL-4IEALTH AND SAFETY,

------

P.ECIDDIENDATION33: .a104M-

.°

THE CRITERIA USED IN (ii) SHOULD TARE fNT6iCCOUNT SUCH THINGS AS ANINDIVIDUAL'S AGE, EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION,'ABILITY TO usg TIC ENGI.ISU .

LANGUAGE, AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND, RATHER THAN MEDICAL CONDITIpN ONLY.

t .

.185

-RECOMMENDATION 34:

TILE rintAsEIN SUBSECTION. (iv), "expected to be used" SHOULD BECLARIFIED SO AS TO INDICATE THAT...IT IS 141IAT THE APPLICANT EXPECTSTO BE ABLE TO USE. .

3. SECTI.ON 271.4 CERTIFICATION OF noustuoun

a. 271.4 (a) (2) HOUSEHOLD CERTIFICATION - verification ofincome

Verification cirin c ome -will be required on initial certificationand an subsequent recertifications if the amount of the incomehas ehanged substantially or if the source of the inCome haschanged. In any` case where a household indicates that it hasincome so low that there is a likelihood that a change must occurin" order for the household to continue to subsist as an economic

'unit, full verification of all factors of.eligibility,is required,unless expenditures and income are to stable as. toindicate thatthe household could maintain this level of existence for an ex-tended period of time.. Verification is not required for otherfactors of eligibility unless the statements. as set out in theApplication for. Participation are unclear, incomplete, or incon-sistent' in any manner that would require a prudent certificationworker to question any, factor affecting eligibility or basis ofcoupon issuance. Certification for 30 days without verificationof eligibility factors may be made only for thouse households

. which report .an income so low as to put them at a zero purchaselevel and only if it appears they will be eligible for partIci-pation.

ILECCOLENDATION

.44

IN THE CASE OF MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARNWORIXRS, THE REGULATIONSSHOULD PROVIDE FOR EITHER A DECLARATIVE SYSTEM, tnaoll ACCEPTS THEINFORMATION SUBMITTED BY TILE APPLICANT, OR IN SO:11 OTHER MAY TAMINTO tpcouar THE USUALLY INADEQUATE EARNINGS EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.BECAUSg FARM:OUT:RS ME OFTEN PAID IN CASH BY A GROWER OR CREW LEADER,All'ORDED DISCRIMINATORY COVERAGE UNDER ,SOCIAL Si,,CURITY, OR ,CONFRONTEDWITH INDIFFERENCE Olt HOSTILITY WHEN ATTEMPTING TO VERIFY INCOME, VtR/Pf--DIG EVIDENCE, OTHER, THAN PERSONAL DECLARATION; IS DIFFICULT4IF NOT DI-POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN.

IN ADDITION, THE DECLARATIVE SYSTElkl HAS PROVEN ACCURATE AND RnLimut,IN THOSE AREAS WHERE' IT ius BEEN. USED.

.187

186

4-

b. 271.4(0(3): HOUSEHOLD CIN APPLICATION - PROCESSING

Process each Application for FarticiPation within reasonable State-establinhedstandards which shall not: exceed 30 days.

RECOMMENDATION 36:4

IN TILE CASE OF MIGRANTS OUT OF THEIR HOME BASE AREAS THU MAAIMUK,PROCESSILO TIME SHOULD BE 10 DAYS MUER THAN 30 TO INSURE THEIRACCESS TO, BENEFITS IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE.

c. 22144(a)(4)(iii)Xal: HOUSEHOLD CERTIFICATION - eORTIFICATIONPERIODS__

Households deriving their income from farm'operations dr farMemployment may be certified for 12.menths.. ,

RECOMENDATION 37:

HOUSEHOLDS DERIVING THE MAJOR-PART OF THEIR INCOME FROM FARM OPERATIONSOR FARM EMPLOYMENT SHOULD BE CERTIFIED FOR 12 MONTHS. THE PROPOSEDREGULATION DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARM UORBERWHO MAY BE FORCED TO TAKE SOME NON-l0M, TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT.

.

d. 2:n..4 tols6LIguEnotn CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION CONTINUATION.

Continue the certification for 60 days of any household which iscertified as eligible-in one food stamp project area and moves toanother foodstamp project area: Provided, That: (0:The house-hold membership does not change; (ii) .the household centinues tomeet the definition of a household as provided in g 270.2(dd) ofthis subchapter; and, (iii) the h usehold was not certified underdisaster eligibility standards as rovided in Part 274.- The projectarea in which the household is cert Pied as eligible shall preparethe documents to transfer certificat on. The project area to whichthe household moves shall accept the transfer' document and issuecoupons to the household in the amount authorized on the transferdocument. However, the continuing eligibility of.bonscholdswhichmove more than once during the same 60-day period shall expire 60days after the initial move. Additional 60-day continuations shallbe Made only after the household has Nett recertified as eligiblein thu project' area from which it requests the additionalcontinuation.

188

187

- 15 -

'faXXX,DIENDATION 18:

. -

PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF CERTIFICATION roll ;

60 DAYS OF ANY MOUSEHOLDMICH IS CERTIFIED AS ELIGIBLE IN ONE rowSTAMP ON COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION AREA AND MOVES TO ANOTHER. FOOD STAMPOR COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION AREA.

4. SEOTION.271.6 IMIHODS OF DISTRIBUTING', ISSUING; Alto ACCOUNTING FOR. courms =RECEIPTS

a. 271.6(d)(4): frequency of coupon issuance

Shaa-inure that eligible households are positively offered thefrequency of coupon issuance that is best geared to the frequency:of their receipt of income: Provided,.That at% minimum, allproject areas.shall make provision for a monthly and semi-monthlyschcAule-of issuance.

RECOMMENDATION 39:.

PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE TO INCLUDE A WEEKLY SCHEDULE OF ISSUANCE.MIGRANTS, USUALLY IN AN AREA ON A TEMPORARY, SHORT-TERM BASIS, MAYWELL BC DENIED ACCESS TO COUPONS IF THEIR FREQUENCY or ISSUANCE IS

I NO MOKE THAN SEMI-MONTHLY.

. SECT/ON 271.8 PLANS OF OPERATION

a.. 271.8(c)(4):. state plan of operation r treach

A State outreach plan to undertake effective action, using Stateagency personnel and the services provided by other federallyft:mlorartizations, to inform low- income householdsconcerning the availability and benefits of the program, and in-sure the participation of eligible households; (underlining supplied)

RECOMMENDATION 40:

TO INSURE THAT A PROJECT DEVELOPS AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF OUIRRACH WHICHUTILIZES ALL' APPROPRIATE MECHANISMS, THE USE OF OTHER AGENCIES AND OR-GANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO THOSE THAT ARE FEDERALLY FUNMD.ANY ORGANIZATION OR GROUP, REGARDLESS OF ITS SOURCE: OF FUNDING, 'MTCAN FURTHER THE PROJECTS ENDS SHOULD BE UTILIZED FOR OUTREACH.

189

4

188

b. 271.8(e): state plan of operationa

RECnkej_BIDATION 41:

THE REGULATIONS SHOULD INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR STAFFING WHICH /NOWDETHE POLLOWING:

THAT THE FtACIAL'AND ETHNIC C01,100SITION OF THE PROJECT' STAFF REFLECTTHE RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE ELIGIBLE POPULATION:

- THAT ALL SUB-PROFESSIONAL STAFF IE HIRED FROM THE ELIGIBLE POPULA-TION: AND

- THAT EACHPROJECT DEVELOP A PLAN FOR SUB-PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ANDCAREER ADVANCEMENT.

C. PART 274 - EMPRGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF DISASTERS

1. SUBPART A - MAJOR DISASTERS- DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT

a. 274.3 (a) : DEFINITIONS 1,tASOR DISASTER

Maj92:_dilseat,ey mean* any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, highwater, wind-driven water, tidal wave, earthquahc, drought, fire,or other catastrophe which is determined to be a. "major disaster"by the President/pursuant to the .Disaster Ralief Act of 1970(Public Law 0-6106, 84 Stat. 1755).

RECOMMENDATION:+11:'

THE DEFINITION OF MAJOR DISASTER SHOULD BE REDEFINED TO INCLUDE OC-CURRENCES THAT PREVENT MIGRANT FARMNORORS FROM OBTAINING THE NORMALLY.

EXPECTED 'AMOUNT OF WORK. TIE RESULTS OF SUCH DISASTER SHOULD, NOT ONLYBE CONSIDERED FOR THE EMERGENCY DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY DURING THE

ACTUAL-DISASTER ITSELF, EDT THERE MUST BE SOME REGULATORY RECOGNITIONOF Tim FACT THAT SUCH A DISASTER WILL MATERIALLY ALTER THE MIGRANT'S

INCOME FOR TILE ENTIRE YEAR. IF SUCH AN OCCURRENCE DENIES THE MIGRANTWORK, DURING A PERIOD 'WHEN LIE HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF WORK, ITIS LIRELY THAT THE MAJOR PROPORTION OF HIS INCOME WILL BE LOST FOR THE

ENTIRE YEAR.

190

189

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICEWASHINGTON, D.C. 30210

Memorable *alai I. Steviman XXXCheizman. Mikommittee on Misrpaimittee on laid and PubliUnited states Senate

Dear Senator Stevenson*

SR 9 Van

Thank you for your letter somemaing the proposed food steepregulations and the participation of migrant farmeadare in thegood, Stapp Program.

We use were that the elitiletIMUket 12-10114020 fear othor low-imams households and therefore requires special samaidsration.is have tried within tise`authoeity of the law, to be responsiveto those spesialmeedi.

Your letter sites imam in the proposed regulations Which youooasiderdiseriadastory toward migrant workers. Z would like to

4 clarify earposiglonon soma of those points beide..

The es houisholde as eligible units - The law requiresiWt qty for the Ina et-ow Programirbe determined on ahousehold rather than as individual basis and that all household'members age .00 andunder be related. The legislative historyJudi that the latent of Congress was to limit the .participation

and common's. .1011 have tried to draft regulations that

out the Congressional inient,.but have a xiniaai affect onother household arrangements.

The rekuirements for detailed documentation and verification - Werealise that the migriaWNarome not always predict what hie.Imams will be at any specific period of time. To provide for this,we have allowed a one-month ocirtifisation pending verification forvery low-inear households. Welds* iallog Iltfts armies toestimate imams in eonsultatioa with the hovS45old vine verificatioais impractical and to establish eligibility and *seism basis ofissuance ausordimgly.

.

The emphanteon disorimimatory. residence requirements In July 1,70,an instruetiom was issued to all state agencsiel prohibiting durationalresidsase teguirmants an a oonditicn of eligibility. The pregamedregulations inocfrporete such a provision..

wsot 0.12. t3 191

190

Th41 aeledalitrative root:Tures, fifth as Air fedttliAtAngs, allttirer-I:apartment's faarfr---igprooes is Lifiliiiiwith

s 2

that of the Department or Wealth, rdeoation and Welfare. However,

we wdatecionsider yOur camerent in relation Co therfinal regulatios.

Yon suggest a spec:da task force to state the evailability of food *UV'

to migrants. Yon else urge that stepspram

*establis a national

fwd stomp oertifloationand distribution program for fareworkes.

With the ispeoding issuance Of new reguletions, we db not roil that,.

specie/ task force old be appropriate* or effective st this time.

prepare the final rogulstioni.

ma mul, lamer, caesider your specific end general opeeents whenve

aosieerzlng natimt? certifieetion, the proposed regulatiomelkg thin

law prOild for uniforie tuts eligibility to replace the

warrant anequities among states sed-for the soetinued eligibility

for SO deys of hoUesholde which Atre oertified la oo* project ere*

the magrantworker.end Nowt* another. We ere hops at thee* provisions will aid

Thank yeu *gj for your ociesate and suggeetions.

sinoexely.

E.

juabello M KellAyAssItard Dop; 17Tinfr;trnflr

192

191

Ap,

.. ENDIX IV /

FAMILY ASSISTANCE andthe M/GlAIFF:

(An analysis of'tht ropily Assistance',Act.of 1970 to dtteysins how effectively

..', it will serve thi migrant population andto xeccomiend Legislative changes and

114gulation Languages if indicated).4-

. .

. ,

Migrant Project Orono..Departuent of Heil0i,-FAucation.'and Vplfiere

*Suit 4P70*Suit

;

a.9

PART i k . .

192

TABLE OP CONTENTS'

Proposed Legislative Chinos .

for the Pasily Asilstence

1 -'7

PART XX:. s Proposed Regulation* tanguage.,.

-I for the Yeseily Aeale8ancaPlan

; e

'PART XX% . . . ..Atteghsents.-..... . .

TABLE OP CONTENTS - TART I

PRopOdEn 'LEGISLATIVE 'i721/IN*GES-

;ntroduction ! ..... e

"Sec 446: Paym nets and ProCedcree" . . .

r

. .

"Set 448, Denial of Benefits in Case ofRaftwalof Manpower orilehabilitatiOn Services,'Tiaining,and Zuployaeut d. ... ....

!,.,* ID. 41,v t. O.

1 94

'

r PAGE .

. ..

PAGES

2

. 2-3

3-5

.,\

raorosmiudIstAlan CHANGES FORCHRYAMILY ASSISTANCE tux

urrionucrtor

migrantpopulation believe certain4sedetoneuf ihe auily Assistance UtefIf the Yeatly Aeilstance Men id to'he truly'respcinsiSto the needs of the

1970 ahead be'revised. The five suggested legislative'chanue cited heti areieto be referred to thi appropriate Departmental personnel. Sowaver, we aft notopPluistic that -the** ptoposed changes Will be incorpesited in the legislation

Ain view of thptisent clluate. Thus, wherever possible, we havi also elidereccemendations'fOr Regulation language on these same issue., in an attempi to .

get scale °phase concepts ilito'the Administration of

, '

. I .1 .

"SIC 446 PAIRESTS AND PROCEDURES"

A. "SEC 46(4(1) PAYMEt,6F Brame

!RESENT WORDING OF THR-A41.4

"Family Assistance benefits shell be Paid?not lees frequently than monthly,except that such benefits stay be paid quarterlyin any cum in which theSecretary determines thet the smouut of such henifite.for a qUartervill'.not exceed 00."

'44 le'

RECOMMENDATION 1:

.ROSA SEC 446(a)(1) TO PIOVIDE rim THE PAYMENT or IFIEFITS OK A LISSFREQUENT BASIS THEN MONTHLY, A.g..QUARTERLY,15/-MONTHLY, ETC. WIREALIZE THAT TUE ORIGINAL ACT 710VIDEWPORTAIS.A.S.IT STATED, "FAMILY,ASSISTANCE IENEFITSOMALL 31 PAID AT swil TIRE OR TIMES AWN IX SUCW

..INSTALLMENTS.AS THE SECRETARY DETERMINES WILL IlprEZFFICTUATE TIOPURPOSES OF THIS TITLE." UNFORTUNATELY, THE ACTASAYISO IN 6/70TOOK AWAY THY SIORETARVI ADTHORITY'TO.DETERMINI,THS ?MUMMY OFIBENEFIT PAYMENT. IN THE CASE OFINT/SIGRANT LAROEIRIT IN VITAL THATME RECEIVE SUFFICIINT.FUNDS IN AP SUM TO,FINANCR,RXS TRIPS TO SUREMPLOYMENT. HE IS OTHERWISE FOR= A-TARR A LOAN FlOM A 01031 LEADER "OREM:K.6M, ALMOST ALWAYS AT USURIOUS IATIS,'AID..Tir UMW= all' ,

DEPIEDESCf OM TIM SYSTEM. '

195

"P

rf

_ 4

4

0

Be -"SIC 446(c)(3) MAXIMS AND RIVIEW"

' A A

..rristir woonia 6r Acr: '' it t,..v.. , - ,-

' "The final determination of the'Sicretary after A.hearing'under'paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial. review as provideddn%Action 205igPto the same extent as the Secretary's Anal determinations ',,

sudder Spctioa 205; exciOt that thedeterminatidh of the Secretary after' Such hearing as to any fact shell.be°4inal mad conclusive and not. _

, subject to review by any court:" a I..

,..,

RICCHIENDATION Et , , 5.

MIND Scp 446(i) TO FROVIDI Fox =gm REVIEW Al IN SICTION.205(g).OF TN1LSOCIAL SICUNITX LAW BY STUR TUX STATIHENT; ."....42(20T T1AT- THE MUSH/MID:40'0r THE szorstAxt SUCH 1UtARING AS, TO MY maCULL I/ FINAL AND, CONCLUSXVI AND NOT MULCT To III:ID/ .BY ANY COURT."

fao

1.4 \ ..

II. "SIC 448 DENIAL OF 1INITITS1114 CASE OF IMI13$?1,0 wairosal it IUMAIWTATIOX ' i ...

.

l.=MOM t TRAINING' MD Veto SENT" N,

r ..

A. "SEC 448(a) DOUAI, OF mama IN CAS! ale REFUSAL. OF HANFOWIR OR,

RZNABILITATICIt SIRVICES, TRAINING-, AND 1101.0EKENT9

4.0

-Q

ritigN7 womic-or TEL Acre1-. .

.

'amount"Forpurposes of determining eligibility for and t of family assistancebenefits under this parts is inlividUal'who 14AS-registered as requiredunder sec on 44/(a) shall be treated .es,aoindividuil to whom section447(a) applies by reason of refusal to register for manpower eervices,training and employment if and foi st.lAng as he has boon: found by thi

., secretary of, Labor, afterreasonahl6 notice and opportunity for,tearing(which shall be held in the mama-manner and subject to the same conditionsas a hearing under - aeotton 4. (c)(1) and (2), to have reflused.without'

.. . .good cause to participate continue to participate-isseapower services,,training, or employment r to have rsiteed without.lod come toaccept employment in ch he is ableto engage ..."

.i

4. . . 1II tog 3t .

.

SIC 448(a) TO IIICIANEdt TROVISfog FOR JUDiCIAL "MEV NON ImOtrpqatsiTlatiotts;"' .

'4

'196

O

..4

4.

X. "SEC 445(b) DENIAL or BENEFITS IN CASE Or lin; or MANPOWER ORItENABILITATION SERVICES), TRAINISOJ AND De

;

'Mind worm or THE ACT: ,

."(b) No family shall..hedeni:d benefits under tbis'part or haVe its benefitsuodet this part reduced, becuale an Individual whois,a 4.0Aber of such0lamily refues work under any.of the folloWing conditions$ - : .

.

, ,,

, Hay if the illosition offered: is vacant'dpe directly to a strike,lockout, or.otherlabor dispute;

.. - ... '

"(2) if the wage*, hourA, or other teris or conditions of the work ,

. offered are contrary to or less thah'those prescribeebyFederal, State, or lcical law or Are sublitantially lel* ,

favorabls to-the-individual than those prevailing for similar'. work in the locality;

... "..,

`"(3) if, as a condition of being employed, the individnalyouId berequired eo join4-company.nnion or to resign from 'or refrainfrom joining any bona fide labororpnization; or .

"(4) if the individual has thcahility, based on ski1Sor prior .

! . experience, to acquire other employment that would contribute. - more to his self-sufficiAlcy, but only if the. Secretary of

: Labot is latisfied that Such employment is actually available ,

i in the community, and thi individual has not Wain given, ,

.1. .; -,4 adegnativopporeunity.to obtain ie.'

NE calaNDATIoN -4A '-... . . ... .

..t

.-

AMEND SECTION. AAs(14(2) TO IXADCTReWAGEE1AVAXLE ION SUCH 4011 EIRE ATA RATE LESS THAN WHICHEVER OF Ti; FOLLOWING if HicHEN-4),TO RATE, ,

... ..rIEVAILLORJOE SMILAX WORK IN THE LOCALITY OE"*byTHE MAETHIM HOURLYRATE ISTABILISHED AY SECTION 607(1) OF THE PAIR LABOR STANDARD{ ACTREGARDLESS Or umiak THAT.AECTIOH AND )LATE USUALLY APPLY- TO Tilt JON IN ' t \:01sTION.

, 6'-.-,

, . .

REoloommaiON 5: ---/

' ADD THREE NEW PROVISIONS TO SEC 448W WHIM WOULD Is ritoVISIoNS (5), (6),AND (7) AND WoULD.SAY EsEENT/ALLY Tgi YOLLTXCW

.

I i(5)o'IKAPPAOPRIATX STANDARDS,10A THE HEALTH AND SUETY OrTitz

EXPLOYIE AIX NOT EVIDENT;

v4

.

- 197

6

1. "An 448(b) DENIAL 0? MIMS IN .C.AIL.OF11111.1SAL OF HAIM= 01lUENABILITATION SIMONS, MINING; ,AND IMPLOYHININcontinued)

...

° ItECOMHINDAVION 5: (continued)Y .

4

(6) II WOMAN'S CeUP6SATION ob UNIMPLOYHENT'INSUAXCI AIX NOTPI0VIDFJ5; MD . -

'(7) IF A CHANGE 01 LOCALE IS imuraiD MD MI 11W JOI WILL NOT ASIUII*IMOLAI 1201.0114INT MD SUMMIT I1ICOl11 Tb HAIS SUM INDIVIDUALAND WILY IN ILWIRLI Int imans mix PART D ADD :unmoor:MYPAMMS 1/NINUt ?An 1.

.,, 'ON G -'at%."14`

4

a

4,

to,

4

197

6

or Comalarrs,- rArr

1ivaros ULATTONS LANGUAGE

' Introduction 7

,

I. PART b WAILS A3S1BTAXCS PLAN

,HEee442, 11.igiality for and Amount ofImmilylasistanca Sonafitin

"Sec 443, intone" S-9

04171-1140Utele* .1 * * .... ..

, nee 44S, Nissans of rodly and Chile...... 4 . 4 -4 10

"Lac 446, Imeents and Progeduras" 10-31.

"Sac 446,. Denial of lanifite in Case ofRefusal of StmapSwer or ItababilitationSersides, Training; olhEmployment" t.... 12.

I/. FART 1 4, !TAU SUPPLIMENTATI0N,07-10,40MASSISTANCI.,SIOSITs

"See 452, 2114111110 For and Amount ofSupplepantary Froonts" .. ..

. . .

"Sac 463. Paporti Ivaluation, lass 04and Demonstrations, and TrainingTathnital Assistance. . . . . .... . .

12-13 .

,xxl, purr C - mitiousit smuts. mum, INPLOTNINT: AND CRIWCan rNOGRAMS POI RECIPIINTS or MILT MUSTANGS MUMSOR SUPPLIKOITARI ?MUM

a"Sac 431, Operation of MamSover torvitssicTrUningmai Saployment Prograse . ". 0, ir . It. It'

Gamaral Secummendetione .........

EtY

1 9i.

a

198

7

rporoso UGULATIOWI LA$GUAGZ roz0112 MILT ASSISTAM FLAX

' .

IMTIODUCT/011

401170114,whiCh follows identifies areas whole ths lastly

4 A...detente legislation is'not entirely responeive to the migrants

-" swede and rake. tecommendationa tOr inclusion is the Regulations

(imeludieg Policy duidelines) iihich will:better serve thilaigrast

commenity. ).

' Saga °ill...suggestions wouy Vetter apply to legiplative cheeps.

liowever, 14 view 'of the Adainistrittion's **cern lo expedite passage

of the bill, it say be more reasonable tOlake action through the

Pagulations. We recognize that some oftlekcommeets, especiallywhere examilss'ere suggested, are fairly,Wviaus. bewever,

experience hoe shown that many people have little familiarity with

the migradt life style. Mush the examples ars explicit IA 'bowleglett certain provisions apply to'thp migrant rather them amainthe connectioe'vill be made.

'4

'

200'.

199

8

I. t'lArf D FAMILY ASSISTANCI PLAN"4

1. "SIC 442 ILICIIILITY FOR AND AMOUNT OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE DINIF/TS"

'1. "SIC 442(c)I41) PERIOD FOR DITUMINATION OF 1INIFITS".

.

"A family's eligibility for and amount of family assistance benefitsshill be determined for each quarter of calendar year. Suqhdetermination shall be made on the basil of the Secretary's estimateof the family!. income for such quarter, and such estiWate shall in

.turn he based on income fora preceding period unless he has reason.tp believe that modifications in income.have or are likely to occuron the 'basis of changes in conditions or circumstances A.."

RIUX**021DATION is

AN mirxx swum SE GIVEN xx TEM rah= GUIDES TO CITE AGRICULTURALINPLOYKINt, PARTICULARLY MIGRANT ACRICULTURAL.SM4'LOYMIN2 AS INS TYPEOF OCCUPATION MIRE Dom TIROS TO' IS VIII UNPIN AND AN SETUDIDTIME PERIOD MUST 3I CONSIDERED IN ESTIMATING FUTUR1 INCOME AND RIDS.

S. "%la 443 INCOME"

1. "SRC 443(a)(l)(A) MEANING or INCOME"

"For purposes of this part, income means both earned income and un-earned income ... and

"(l) sarned'incose miens only '

"(A) remuneration for services performed as an omployee (asdefined in Section 210), other than remuneration to whichSection 209(6), (c), (f), or (4), or Section 211. ., .

would apply; and ..:'

SUICOMIUMDATION 2:

SINGS SECTION 20,(h) OF TUI SOCIAL SICURITY ACT IS EXCUSED, WI -RUM= A REALISTIC MIURA SCALE St tSTAJLISHID P01 TVS VALUE ORINCOWTO AVON TNI EXAGGERATED CLAIMS OF TNI VAT= OF MIGRANTS' ROOK

. AND WARD/4AM SY SCHt GROWERS. /Ng SOCIAL StCUXITY ADMINISTRATION'SPOLICY GUIDES RAVI SOME STATIC FIGUISS MC* CAN Si AVIRACO 701 A

. RI/40NA= NATIONAL FICURI. (SIX ATTACIRSINT I)

4,

qt,

201

5.

9-t

2. "SEC 443(b)(1),IXCLUSIONS FROM INCOME"

.

"In determining the income of a family there shall be excluded (1) .

subject to limitations (as to amount or otherwise) proscribed by. the Secretary, the earned income of each child in the family who

is, as determined by. the Secretary under regulationa,.a studentregularly attending a school, college, or university or a courseof vocational or technical training designed to preps e,him forgainful'emaoymente .

EZCOMKINDATION 3:

IN CONSIDERING HOW MUCH,;IF.ANY, STUDENT INCOME,IS TO 11 COUNTEDTOWARD THE FAMIIN'SINCCH11, EXCLUDE A REALISTIC AMOUNT TO COVER

Ist STUDENT'S TUITION, ISM,. BOARD, AND NORMAL LIVING Evans.

C. "SEC444 RESOURCES"

1. "SEC 444(a)(1) AND (2) EXCLUSIONS FROM RESOURCES"

"In determining the resources of a family there shall be excluded"(1) the home, household geode, and personal affects, and "(2)I4per property which, as determined in accordance with and subjectWilimitationsln regulations of the Secretary, is so essentialto the family's meanirof self-support as to warrant its exclusion."

RECOMMENDATION41

SPEC/FY THAT AN AUTOMOBILE (OR OTHER MOTOR.VEHICLE) SHOULD MS".B11 CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO A FAMIg'S SELF- SUPPORT sum

1, THE

VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, A MOTOR VEHICLE It NECESSARY FOR CME OF...

THE FOLLOWING:

1. TO SEEK impLoymEn2, TO TRAVEL TO AND FROM WORK3. TO OBTAIN MEDICAL CARE4. TO DO COMPETITIVE SHOPPING3. TO PARTAKE IN RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BLANKET IN MOTOR VEHICLES FOR. ALL BENEFICIARIESIN THE REGULATIONS, THEN THE POLICY GUIDES SHOULD IDENTIFY MIGRANTa01111 AS ONE SPECIFIC OCCUPATION WHERE A MOTOR VEHICLE IS NECESSARYFOR SELF- SUPPORT, THUS, A MIGRANTS' MEANS OF TBANSPORTATION SHOULD IALWAYS BI EXCLUDED,

2 t4

a

et 201

10

I. "PART D IrAtaLY Ai1ISTANC1 PLAT" (continued)

D., "SIC A45 minixO OF PANTIT AID WILD"

1. "Sid 445(a)(1) wad (2) CONPOS/T/011 Or A !AMY"'

4 "Two or store isdividtials .

"(1) who are ,related Ity.blobi, merriest or adoption."(2) who art living is a place of magmas nallttainsd by oats or

.store of then as his or their own hose,"

RICOMIDATION 5: z .. .

PROVIDE A SUFFICIIITLY IMOAD DIFINITaIN or ADOPTION TO INCZUDNITROUSITUATIONS =NI AN ADOPTED cum Is NOT tIGALLY Aporrrojtvls,m00,WITS AND DEPINDErS.U1'01( AN' ADULT FOR AT MST. SOT 07 NO SUPPORT. $ VCS A

XII= SHOULD SE 4ONSIDC11310ADOPTID rOlt Till PUIVILES-Sor 1.T.P.

=COMMENDATION' it .. . .

SPICIPT THAT BLOOD nuirrnmars INCLUDE SUCH Pitt4TIONS11IPS AS CRAM*?AUNTS - ORANDCRILD, UNCLE. AltrItlar, ITC. .RECOMMENDATION 7*

4

MOBILE OR 21HPONARY STRUCTUNIS SUCH AS CAPS, NUSSIS, TRAILERS. TINTS,MID LABOR CAMS SWUM' Xt ,CONSIDSPID TO MELT TIN DIYINITIM Or"RESIDENCE" WIN IT SE/Mt AS THE APPLICANT'S'ICK5, AS OFTEN IS TEXCASE WM MOUNT YAINIOLICI1Ult '

-4

Z. "SIC 446 PAYMINTS AND 'wawa:"

I. " IC 446(a)(2) PAYMENTS Or IMPITS"

t, of the family assistadei benefit of any family say le sadato any one or sort seishere of the fastily,or if the .1recratary,deesse, itappropriate, to ent person, other.thea a *eller of such family, who isisterreted is or conceived with the w*1fare of the featly."

ie

RECOMMENDATION St

YAYMINT TO A rumutanrArrn PAM 1111:1ULD NOT MADE FOR AN ADULTuNurcrAn MISS n Ii CLEARLY MENTALLY OR PITSICAL INCAPAILII 'OrILUWLINC NIS OWN IINIFITS. SUCK IIICAPASILIIT SNOULD II =Inn TO STA MEDICAL DOCTOR OR TIM COURTS.

5.

2a3

It

A,

44

- .202.

0 11

0 1. "SEC 441(a)(20. PAYMENTS OF simsrxre (continued)

S iamAimomoN rs-

TOKIO Oi OMITS ON Enall'OF A T.A.P. SENIFICIAMT TO Axtrizsprxrpa PATES SHOULD.11 MADE SAUD ON THE PAYEE'S PERSONAL/KUM IN THE SENEFICIARY AND HIS MLITT TO USE THE !WS SOLELYFOR THE szancracts NEEDS. Inc SUGGEST USING THE SOCIAL SECURITYREGULATIONS, EMULATION 34, SUS-PART Q, "REMIESENTATIVE PAYEE," ASWELL AS THE GUIDES CONTAINED IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY'S CLAIMSPOLICIES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO6TE THAT MEANT TAXIWORKERS AREOFTEN VICTIMIZED SY CREW LEADERS WHO TRADITIONALLY lay; ACTED AS.FINAMCIAC INTENIEDIARY,1111WEEN TANK EMPLOYER AND MIGRANT 7ARMWO1UWAt.EVEN STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS GENERALLY ARE NOT RESPONSIVE TOMIGRATORY LAZO SINCE WEIR NOSILITY DOLE NOT PEWIT TOM TO-WOKE A PART or us COMONITY STRUCTURE. .(ssz 3.trAcomr4)'

2. ,411 C 440 e . 1 APPLICATIONS AND F11111/1 ONF RIATION SY FAMILIES".

"The Secietiri shall prescribe regulations applicable to families'r, or maeberi thersof.vith respect to the filing of applications,, the

furnishing of other data and material, and the reporting of eyeletssod changes in circuestences, as may beiviceasery to determineeligibility formul esOunt of family aseistaice UssefIts."

RECOMMENDATION 101 ° y .

IN TO INTEREST 07 A P T PAYMENT OF SMITS, TO REGULATIONSEMOULD PROVOS TO 11 DECLARATIVE SYSTEM WHICH ACCEPTS THE INTONATIONASD;DATA SWOTTED WITH, OR OM THE AfTLICATION roA TIM PURPOSE ,

RAKING IMMEDIATE PAYMENT. THESE DECISIONS. CAN THIN SE VALIDATED ATA LATER wax. . .

vox THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING INTONATION IT IS SUGGESTED TEATEMPHASIS SE PLACED ON THE CLAIMANTS' WIRENTS RATNER THAN TONALPROOFS. THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATI2M'S C2-C3 RULE (SEEATTACItillrli,l) WHICH RELIES ONTHE CLAIMANTS' STATEMENT TO ESTASLISHvtaxmc LIEU or A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE (UNLESS THERE IS A..NATIONAL REASON TO /OUST THE STATEMENTS)-IS AN EXAMPLE OF-THIS:ENOS OF MEMO, AGEETC. CAN SE, DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN IN WEALAREAS AND THE PROM ts.combumoro WHIN RACIAL AND ETHNIC TAMESARE ADDED OR WHIN IILTICW,104101 FAIRWOXIRS AU INVOLVED.-

204

I

121.0

. .

:-.-1'FART---11-=-111,111.'1 --ASSIST4MCEPLAN't- '(continue d) t.,

1'F. "SEC 448 DENIAL OF BENEFITS IN CASs: Or REFUSAL OF 'MANPOWER 011 REHABilITATION ,f

SERVICES", TSAINING,. OR EMPLOYMENT" t : / 1" -- ' !.

"SEC 448(b)(1) and (2) "DFSIAL,OF ENEFITS IN CASE OF:REFUSAL OF-MANPOWEROR' REHABLLITATION SERVIeES, TRAINING, OR F/IPIOYMENT" '

. .

"(8). No 'family *hall be denied benefits udder this part, or have itsbenefits under this part reduced, because an individual who is amember of such family refutes work under any of the follomaing:"(I) if the position offered it vacant due iirectly to a strike,lockout, or-other labor diskute; . -"(2)': if the wages,:hours, or tither terms of'conditions of the workoffered are nontrary to or less than.those prescribed by Federal, State,Or local law are substantialy. lesinkfavorable to the

+ those prevailing for similar work in the ,locality' t-RECCIMMERDATION 111 .

0

sDISPUTE"THE DIFFINIUON OF "OTHER LAHOH,I SHOULD EXPRESSLY INCL UDE

,DISPUTES 1M TYPES OF'EMPLOYMENT NOT ODVERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THENATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS'Acr, e.g. FARR WORK.

-RECOMMENDATION 128A..

IN IINEGIVBIll SEC 448(6(2), PFOVIDE STANDARDS FOR SuriANI,Tri OF SOBSWRItH, INCLUDE =ALTS AND SAFETY STANDARDS, WORXMAN'S CgeziliskTioN0uNExelinmeNT INSURANCE, AND DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT.... .

VPART E - STATE SUPPLEMENTATION OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE BENEFITS"

9A. "SEC 452 ELIGIBILITY FOR AND AMOUNT OF 'SUPPLEMENTARY PAYI,DINTS"

. . .

,

1. 'SEC 452(c)(4)(b) ELIGIBILITY RIR AND AMOUNT 07,SUPPLEMENTAICI-PAYMINTS"-

"Thi agreement with ICState under this part,..thsaproxiide (b) fot the timminlitig suct effectiiriuSs_if:,ps1.4sub

proftssional staff, with partiCular emphasis on the'f1!- oipart-time'employment of- recipients of supplementary paiments and otberperions oflost income, as oassaunity services aides,Ilinicarrying out -the agreementand fOr the use of nonpaid or partially paid yOlunteeri in a sonialservice voluntier programa in providing services to applicants for andrecipients of Supplementary payments and wasting any advisory, comittee,:established:by the State agenty;"'

-"sEC--452(c)-(4)(14-.;Ef.IGIBILITE-40R=AND:AMOIJNT- OF-SUPPLEMENTARYPAYMENTS" (continued)

RECOMMENDATION 13' tI

.

' THE NAVIAt AND. ETHNIC CUIPOSI ION 120:STAri SHOULD REFLECT TUN\ RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION F POPUTATION*SF40PAD. THIS -- , SAME SUGGISTION APPLIES, TO VI TAFF WHICH wn&Ainizzoso To,. :A/MINISTER PART IT;

"SEC 463 RETORT, EVALUATION, RESEARCH-AND DEMONSTRATION, AND TRAININGAND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE"

."SEC 463)a) REPORT, EVALUATION, RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION, ANDTRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE"

!The Secretary 'shall =Re an' annual report to the Presidentand the C6ngress on the opezatioi: and adminlitration of Parts Dand E, including' are evaluition thereof in parrying out thepurposes of -suck parts and recazatendationsith respect thereto.The Secretary $.6 authorized to conduct evaluations directly or

by. grants 04 contracts of- thevirogrows authorized by such parts.".

RECCMIENDATION 14:

UNDER THIS SECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SECTION, CITIZEN-BOARDS CCHPRISED TRIRARILY RECIPIENTS, WHICH WILL

r.. ASSIST TN THE EVALUATION. OF.THE SPERCTIVENESS OF FAMILY.ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SHOULD BE REQUIRED. THESE BOARDS,SHOULDBE ESTABLISHED ON THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL. LEVEL.

2. "SEC 463(b) REPORT, EVALUATION, RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRAtION, AND,TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE"

"The Secrdtazy is Suthorized to conduct directly or by grants.or:contracts research into or demonstrations of Darsd getterprovicting financial zunistance to needy persons or of battercarrying out the purposes of Part D

RECOMMENDATION 15:

/STAELISH A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO: (1) DETERMINE THE ElrEECTIVENESS.OF F.A.P. WITH. REGARD TO MIGRATOICUFAIDI LABORERS; AND (2) DEVELOPSyPPORTIVE AND MANPOWER SERVICES SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT ENCOURAGINGRESETTLEMENT ATTEMPTS MADE. BY MIGRATORY FARM LABORERS AND THEIRFAMILIES IN LIGHT OF ?ARM LABOR DISPLACEMENTPROJECTIONN.

2 0 61

295

14

2. "SEC-463(b)--REPORT,- EVALUATION, RESEARCH-AND DEMONSTRATIONS, ANJTRAINING ?dip TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE" (continued)

RECOMMENDATION 16:

) ESTABIASH RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROOLOgiswHIGH. ADDRESS:' ,

(1) THE TYPES OF vocATIop4rROoRAms THAT SHOULD DEMO A1 TRAINING AND RETRAINING DISPLACED MIGRANT FAEMWORKERS:..

'

' (2) MECHANIZATION AHD TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRIJ. AND ECU PEOPLE:SHOULD BE TRAINED IN THE SEILLSNECEES

AS A RESULT OF THE MECHANIZATION AND NEW TECHINUM:

(3)..THE DEVILOPMENT'OFAMIERARCHY OP JOB OPPORTUNITIES OI R.'LADDERS. AS SUGGESTED BY JAMES W. BECKET IN "FARM LAB0111DEVELOPMENTS," DECEMBER 1969; PG.:94 AND.

10

(4) THE LOGISTINAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVID ASSISTANCOAIRENTE'TO A MIGRANT moms POPULATION. ''

RECOMMENDATION 17:

CREATE A MODEL PROGRAM FOR SUPPORTIVE SERVI , AS DE IN 'Sic

2001 AND 2002, TO MIGRANTS FOR RESETTLEMENT. SUCH A P SHOULD-- INCLUDE MIGRANTS IN ITS PLANNING AND EXECUTION, Apo

FOR STATES TO FOLLOW, AS WELL AS PROVIDE INCENTIVES (1' FINANCIA74ATTRACTIVENESS) TO STATES TO. DEVELOP stamp PROGRAM* MTH HOMEEASE AND USER STATES.

.

. /

C MANPCWER SERVICES, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT, AND CHILDCARE PROGRAMSFOR RECIPIENTS OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE BENEFITS Of'SUPPLEMENTArCPAYMENTS".

,

A., . "SEC 431 OPERATION ormorowaR SERVICES, TNA/1-11N% AND-INDLOYMENT.PROGRAMS"

1. "SEC' 431 OPERATION OF MANPOWER SERVICES, TRAINING; 11,4D'EMpLOIMENT--------PROGRAMS'!

..

. "431(a) --The Secretary OtLabor shall, for each perion registeredpuroUant to Part D, in accordance with priorities priecribed by .a

develop or ensure the developeentof an 400loyebtlity plaAdescribing the aanpower services, training, .and sag. ,ant whichthe Secretary Of labor.detereines what each person jade in orderto enable him. to become self*stipporting and secure

esplOyelit sad wpOrtunities for advancement."

0

as-2o1 0- 73 - 14

xa ,

1. "SRC 431(4 OPERATION OF MANPOWER SERVICES; TRAINift, AND,..IMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS" (c6ntinbed)

. ,

.1ECOMMENDATIONAS:

1

SHOULD URGE THE DEPARTMENT Or LABOR TO RESERVE-A SUBSTANTIAL

__LER OF,TRAINTNG SLOTS FOR MIGRANT ADD SEASONAL FARMWORKERS.

e'//PERHAII-A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, .g...1/3 OF THE 74.000 SLOTS RESERvgFOR-TOEWORKING POOR'CAN BE EARMARKED YOE sr.AgONAI: AND NIGIATOMTAGRICULTURAL LABOR.. THIS PROVISION WILL ASSURE HELP TO THOSE N110,.ARE IN:THENOST DESPERATE NEED WITHOUT DEPENDING ON sTAIT ANWLOCAL:AMMOBITIES TO EROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THIS rOLITICALWUN-REPRESENTED GROUP OF PEOPLE.

1.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

A. REGULATIONS. .

4

Iivvrder to insure that the benefits. orthe Family AssistanceProgremincluding the payment of supplemAntary benefitt'Are availmbli.mAdaccessible td the eligible and potentially a13Efbii migrants and othersit serves, it,is suggested that the following regUlAtion provisions beincluded in any appropriate Sections of Part D and I:

(1) OFFICE,HOURS:IN THE EVENING AND/OR WEEKENDS.. (IF APPROPRIATE,:THERE MIGHT E$ FEAERAL MATCHING PORI/TENDED OFFICE HOURS.);

p) MOBILE OFFICES OR CONTACT STATIONS SHOULD 'BE SETUP INWHERE TRANSPORTATION IS LIMITED; OR WHERE AN mumA LARGE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA (IF APPROPRIATE, THERE SR 'Bt

MATCHING FOR-MOBILE'OFTICES AND/OR CONTACT OFFICES.);

(3).A.FORNs AND PRINTED INFoNithaN slime BE BILINGUAL IN mosN LOCALAREAS WHERE 41 LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH IS SPOKEN NT A

, SUBSTANTIAL =MEER OF THE TARGET POPULATION.

(4) JO:NT/ATI OUT - REACH. SYSTEM.

208

. 1.

AttaSment #1 ...National Vilna of 2n4,;ifS1nd ltsauneration

...- 4 I

Attachment 12 Social dicuilty CUile Policy Culdt. .

trident* of Morriss*. . . . . IS

. ,

Attachment #3 = Social. Security Ululation*, Part IV'4

Upreinotativa q' . °

23,9

208

17.

.

0

NATIONAL VALUX OP IN-RIND IMMUNISATION

(Computed from data contained inthe SocialSecurity Administration' Claim Policy Guido-CH 1141.2 "Table on Value of board and 10411111")

4The following table was Computed by averaging the State figures shown in CH11414. The Stets figures are belied on the plated on temuneration-inkiRd in the rules and regulations issued ate UomeploymentCoapensatiod Laws.

.

oceill per week - meals and lodziog $12.05

Coot-2/

per week seals 11.57

Cos 4/ pey day - Utals

CoisbY pet seal - sea ..45

Cosa/ per weak. - 3.13 .

Coe* potday. lodging: .59

ft ."

J/Average coot

-.Protege cost

2/Average coot

'Average cost

4(virago Cost

i/.01-Amersgs coot

032 States reporting, ,

34 States reporting.t -11 _,

27 Statei reporting..

42 States reporting.

42- Stites reporting.

34 114stes reporting.

4

"20f ?roof °k HarrisSe.--1*). Ceiemonial'Harriage.-- A Cereoonial stamina.may ,be proOed by.s certified copy of the public or.churCh record of marriage orthe'briginel Marriage certifioete. Thelqifes, staiement,on her applicationthiOsho Was cerMionially,married to the WE maybe generally iCcepted if it isconfirmed in writing by-the WE (usually on his SSA-3. Husband's Certification.or When his wife is concurrently filing..in hid reply to the marital relation-shipAuestions on his application for or Di. SEA-1.(Application-forletivement Insurance Benefits) or SSA-16 (Appli ation for Disability Insurance'.Bensg1ts). /waver, doculentary'evidence offered by the. an shouldAlluOie he included is the file...,"

4d

7209

Is

SOCIAD SECURITY =DM POLICY GUIDE'

(Proof of,Harrioge CM 237)any efs

L

L.

ir\

210

OCTAL SECURITY REGULATIONS PART IV REPRESENTATI PAYEE

. . .

Subpart Q-- Representative PayeeBoons: The provisions of this ibbpart %*.)

*PPM' at 20 2".24. 11527. Deo. 0, 150)* 26 PA.Inns, ,o.14.1911,14.1911, units' otherwise noted. "1

$ 404.1601 'Payments on behalf of anIndividuak __ i

When it appears to the Adrninistra.tion that the. interest of a beneficiaryentitled to a payment under Title 11

- of the Act would be zqrved thlibY. Cef- . - .Administration, regardleu of the letiet,competency or Incompetency of thebeneficiary entitled thereto. either' fordirect payniont to such beneficiary. or

' for his use end benefit to a relative orsome other person as the "represents-five piyee" of the beneficiary. if sp- . ,pointment of II legal guardian, commit.tee or Other local representative for abeneficiary. may otherwise be Proper,'put Administration may. at any .time.withhold certification of payment to a .

!beneficiary or to a,relative or other per-son on behalf, of a beneficiary until, a

)4stuardian. committee. or.otber legal rep.,resentative whb is dilly authorized , to

.lieheficlari. bus been appoInte .'receive payments . on behalfko; *such ',

114Q4.1603 Submission of ovi wee byrepresentailre payee.

Before any amount shall be ertified.for payment to any relative o oflierperson es *presentative payee or andon behalf a beneficiary, such relativeor other n shall submit to the Ad- -ministration such evidence as it May

',.. require of his relationship to,. or his.re...t.. -... ----.sponsibility for trio Cart of, the Irene-

.11tificat u of payrnen I, may be ma eby the

payee shall, subject to review by :theAdministration and to Such require-,manta se it may from time to timeprescribe, apply the payments -certifiedto gim on behalf of a benefielary onlyfor the use and benefit of such bene-ficiary in the manner and for the, pur-

, poses determined by him to be in the'.beneficiary's beat interest.

I 404.1604 Use of benefits for currentninintsoinco.

Payments certified to a relative or.other person on. °Cobalt of a. beneficiarrshall lie cortsidered as having been ap-

11)11E1 for the use and benefit of thebeneficiary when they are used for thebeneficiary's current maintananot-Leto .replace current Income lost b002010of the disability, retirement, or deathof the Insured indivklual. Whore abeneficiary issrooeiving care in an in-

stitution (se* f 404:1600, currant main-_butane° shall. include, the customary .

charges made by the institution to in -dividuaLs it provides with care and sew-logelike, those it'provides the benefitdery4and charges made for current and,forl.seeable heeds of the beneficiary 'Whichare Bet met '6y the institution,1404.160Sr ZonservatIon and invest.'

Wrest or payments.Payminte certified to a relatlie or-

other person on behalf of a beneficiarywhich are net needed for the current

;.rasintinknoc cif the beneficiary except:-ei that may bo used pursuant to i M..

be,made,, or of his authority to receive "180% Shall be conserved or inveitsd onBriery on whose behalf payment is tO

such payment. Trio Administration,the .bonsfichtry's behalf. Preferred in-

mey,, at any time thereafter, require -4 '^ vestments are U.S. Savings Bonds, but.

evidence of the continued existence ofsuch funds fly also bet invested in ii,or ,

such relationship. responsibillti or au. . . cordance wl the. rules applicable to,thority. T1 any such *relative or other v -investment of trust estates by trustees...4.

' person fails to submit the required oV1- - Por, example, surplus funds may bo de-. :yogriatee within a reasonable period of time- -'- .. posited in an interest or dividend bearing,-

t socount is a bank or trust cothpany or in .a savings and loan association If the no.

r -count Walther Federally insured or is: ,otherWho' insured in accordance with .

- :. State Jaw' requirements. BitrPlus fund;deposited in ,an interest or dividendhearing accouht in a bank or trust Cote-

, . puny Or in a savings and loan Pipets-.tion must be in a form of account whichclearly shows that the representativepayee has only a Minden!. and Bet a

. .,

r is requested, no further P0YrDrente shall be certilletUato him on be}half of the beneficiary unless for geedcause shown, the default. f such relatitte,.-or other person isexcused by ,the Ad-

- ministration, and the required *Mena.Is thereafter submitted.1 404.1¢03 Responsibility of topreeenter

five payees

A relative or other person to whomCatilianqu'OTJAYMent'is made on be...halt of a ben Glary as tepregentative

el

212

I

a

211

. APPENDIX V

STATE OP MINNESOTAC.orsimits

Sim% or Ec000sac Orton Warr'1104 Cethel Seers -- 560 Crodac femt

7. Noz., Ifirmas.m. 55101 .

012/221-2:40

August 5, 1971

Deer Sir

.disoloied you vill find a oopy of a report oottoorning Migrants and Vullit

4iproblywie.;rith the Federal food Ameistwoce pry:mimic The report was de-

',eloped, initial-1Y, for use by the Xsional rriraltioni Migrant Coordin-

sting Oneetttee (1t1142C) es subooMittes of the Chicago Regional Council.

The report and recomnadettui haw bet acoepted by 11114CC and forwarded

"4 with their endokomntto the Region a.1 Council.

le :hare provide cow for your inforsitioa because or your interest and

'mace= for tep

famworkers plight in Asserfea today.

sincerely

Peter Morino. Ctairionnod Oub-Comittee

Nancy Caldwell

213

212,

.fiiiittain or 1V1xNNF.sorre..COvitturoa's

Off= or Ecomouic Orroirrunur104 Capitol Square $50 Cairo Street

ST. PAUL, Mire112110TA 55101

111244221.2317

a

Part I June 30, 1971

.4

Ds, applying to participate in one of the.Fedirel:Food Assistance prOirama

111!..necisaary for one tor'verify hii income and prove;his eligibility.

The regulations that =Abu davelpped to certify eligible participants

font steeps nd commoditiet are in many wsyslicontradictorr, inadequate

MC rand asostimPortentl,y they are often dnterpretted in such a fashion Is to

effectively'eliminate the very persons that they are intended to germ

It is to this point that-'utr wish to direct our commend,

A major factor which perpetuates the continuance of thete.procidurer:irthe

apparent lack of or 'inadequate communication between and:within USDA offices.

and Welfare offices. The result of this' situation is normally detrimental

to the potential participant because his lab]; Of knowledge; about thise"pro-

crow leaves hilewithout facility to- direct his'own life. lie meat follow

the recommendations of the caseworker who may be v'ry uninformed and fur-

thermore he has no basis to question the proceedip(that is, if he doesSoy, 0

not fear vengeance in the form of not being certified)/ Forltstance,

fr+quently.a caaeworker tfill neglect or not know or not remember etc. to

4

L,

214'

213

discuss hardship deductions with an applicant. Nevertheless, hardship.

deductions are often a decisive factor in either obtaining certificatiOn-

itself or in significantly siting purchase requirements. We believe

it is imperative that rrect and complete information be communicated

to all persons olved in certificatidn and issuance with the emphasis that

they are th to mullet the applicant in everyway. possible.

U we' review the procedures and the content of different phases of the

Programs we may provide en insight as to other areas of problems (la

_viewed by the participants.).

Application - one must apply for these programs; the difficulty lies in thee

fact-that to apply one must usually go to the proper office (usually the

Welfare office which is normally located in the' county seat) tithing office

s hours. Bythis method, persons of low income are required to lessen their

'''-..-14knorx11,.,by (a) taking time off from their fobs, (b) to travel some distance

*Ad (crwait until their timn arrives for (d) their time consuming interview.

Realizing that an application is necessary - we wieh to indicate that it

merely the procedures which are so discouraging and demoralizing.

rtification - again we note that the procedure for certification leaves., .

bah to be desired. Butin4lealing with the.content of the certification we

find some additional limitations, contradictions, and inadequacies'. For

215'

-214

instance, students earnings are counted as income during certification when

the student in meet l8 - whereas a student is exempt under.Sociat Security

Benefit: and Federal Income Tax until he is 22 years of age, This 1s .a

oontradiction,between federally regulated programs for which guideline,s

are inadequately written which causes limitations to the. participints. It

is also unclear that a student remains in that statue during academic vac-

. *Hoes. Another case in point, proceeds on'a loan are, counted as income,

under present certification methods whereby the Federal. Government does

not require that this be done in reporting income for taxation purposes.

Furthermore, it is required that the applicant prove his income by whatever

miens available. but the traditional means (pay stub;, receipts, etc.) are

not available to many low-income persons. It seemtjne6ntistenf that one

department of, e government should require written information while the

department of the govefurnent which regulatee'that information does no

require that it be made available. In an effort to ease this situation Welfare

Departments often try to assist the applicant bytelephoning the employer for

the proper Infos:Illation.

,) 6

The fault in this procedure lies in the int that many employers are over-

sealous in their reporting of anticipated income i.e. through good iiOnntions

they report more income than the person will actually make. Moreover

many employers are uneooperative and/or provide incorrect information..

C-

216

4

4 -

215 ;

Then the person is tertifisfd on the basks of this anticipated income.

Whether this estimate of Income has been correct or not is irrelevant

due to the fact that it will not become a reality for 2, 3 or'4Yeeks. The

problem then ia.where will the money come from to meet the purchase

requirement? Torbiten the employer provides help by offerine,to loan.the employee money .-thie is another point. of concern. Noi64 are

loans' counted' as income when they are received but meneys:bzoing'used

to repay debts, such as theseloans, are also counted as income.1

Another ploy in the game of certificition appears when applicants are not

prepared to Brove.their income,data (usually because they have no know-_

ledge of what is necessary); their intervieyer sends them away to collect

the proper information - this result. in unnecessary delays, discouragement,

and is time consuming and expeniive (travel costs and time off from jobs)

and often results in the refusal of applicants to participate.

Deductions are also a very large problem irea - whit deductions are avail-

able ti an unclear, unknown hidden quantity. Deductions Seem to be flexible 0

and not all are datory - such as travel, utilities and money reserved for

children's educati Sipene states carry deductions while °there'd° not.

These deductioni c %vied with°the inequitable'metheds of determining net

income for public assistance and non-public assist/inn, cases (through separate

)/

a

217

X

A

4

scales) are reprehensible in Chat.they do not work to.the benefit of the tip.

licaet at all tithes. Another 'point of controversy is the residency requ6er v .

meet which we anclerstand to meanthat a. person must simply reside in

the proPaNea at the present time, the trouble comes when interviewer*

are permitted to require "intent to reside" which is aperraineni residency

stecsisary ftr Welfare recipients but not for Federal Food Assistance pro-

grams. ,a

Persons who apply for certification for commOditres or*food stamps on emir-

satiny basis usually do so because they have no food nor the money needed

to purchase food. However, it has become' procedure that those persottli

are certified on the basis of anticipated income rather than emergency. With

the loresight of a paycheck at th'e and of the month or in 3 weeks etc.a.per-

Manic then certified on the basis_ 7 f that(41crcted it 3 weeks) income to

purchase food stomps.' !tut what do !re expect him to use to purchase those

stamp. with? A reminder here - he borrows money to buy the stamps, .

the amount twirl. ed and the amount used to repay will be counted as in.

come (a force working against him). How will he buy the stamps? Ferson.

requesting Onmodities are usually forced-to wait becaus the isattins officer

has not.ordered enough tied as none on hand. In the, meantime, how will this

family eat? It seems very inconiistetit-that the Fearral Food Aesiehtnce

programs cannot be geatedto do what they purport to do feed the hungry

Poor:

218

.1,

217

Issuance - Once one is participating in a program providing food ot 'ate:nips

one must physically - go and get them. The difficulty here lies in the fact '. 0

that to get them one must go 'to the prdper office (usually welfare, township,

or a bank) during appointed or 'office hours. By this method we are again

requiring i) \ rsprts of low-income_to lessen their iticon; e (a) taking time: off

from their job. (b) to travel some distance and (c) to wait' until their: turn

for services arrives. And in the case of commodities burdening the persone , ,

with perhaps a heavy, load (100 potuids oroanore) because the service is only

available Once, a month.-.,

The first section has provided a surface description a some of the many

problems that Participants experience in dealing with the Federal Food

Aesirance programa. Reviewing the above...comments it is evident to

us that some Federal Legislation or adequate enforcement and information

concerning present regulation." is necessary to alleviate ihe problems with

these programs. We have/conzidered the situation and see there are manyer

places where change or clarificatiqn is necessary and could be achieved

within the present regulations. It is our contention that if communications

were clear and complete many "problems" would be immediately resolved.

For exarnPle, we realize the State Departinents of Welfare have interpretted.

the residency requirement one weir while "Come caseworkers are utilizing

other definitions - such as permanent residen y or intent to reside clauses.

Proper communication" would solve this. It is imperative that some method

be provided to'insure that all caseworkeri have all the appropriate and most

- recentlinformation concerning these programs; this is necessary to benefit

those very persons whom theseprograms.in*d to assist. The principle

of the matter here being that lack of information and advOcicy on the part of

the State and Federal employees continually serves as an effective tool to

eliminate participants. We have not spoken of advocacy of the poor previously.

because the matter hinges on emotions; let it-suffice to say that persons

in positions of local or federal government dealing with the public should

be total advocates for the poer of that public. It is appalling that we are)

forced to say should 12e_advocates and not that this is already the Case.

We...would like to make recommendations based on our various experiences

and knowledge; We recommended that the Regional Council request the -

Regional DREW Director to give positive consideration to the following

items and 'to instruct the State Welfare Agency Directors to implement tharm:

A. That each agency shall take the most liberal position possible in

interpretting and implementing regulations determining these

programs:

B. That each agency insures that every employee who is involved with

these programs has complete knowledge and understanding of all

parts of thesis programs. )

C. That work schedules in counties be altered so that the liourifor

certification of food stamps and commodities, and their distribution

and issuance be convenient to the participant so that he. may partic-

spate in thine programs without loss of work,

D, Thai the number of days per month that certification, distribution

and issuance are available to the community be sufficient so that

no family in need of assistance should have to wait more than one (1)

day to receive same.

2

E, That inctitiona of certification andlissuarise centers be centralized.'

in order to minimize the inconvenience and transportation cost to

the target population.

F. That migrants when entering a state be certified for participa

ifi family food programa for the duration of their stay in the stikte«-

even if they cross county lines. This will afar considerable

in time and costs for both farrnorkeri- and county welfare depart-

ments.

G. That State Welfare Directors initiate negotiations with other Great

Lakes $t.ate Departments- which will-result rn the aeceitance of their

certification of mirgrants when entering the state.

That State and County Welfare Departments which serve' Spanish

speaking people actively recruit bilingual staff, Ind provide public

information about their programa in appropriate Spanish and English.

I That Stati and County agencies contract with( ortanizations of poor

persons, CAA's and other groups which work with the poor to con.,

duct outreach concerning their protrams to farm woricervand other

rriembers,df the target population.

That State agencies write a policy clarifying certifications procedures

for farm workgri, until such time as USDA does so. This will make

fors' uniform procedure throughout the state, It should be written

222

221

4 -

1

to maximize the.possihle participation for farm, worker*, specifying,'

such things apt airicloms earned by a student shall be counted as

income (even if he is on his summer- vacation); that no farm worker

will be denied participation on the basis of anticipated (but impossible

, to determine) income, that emergency certification is available for

at period of one mOneli or less on_ the'basit of cash on hand, not on

enticipatea income btc. This policy shall .1)e sent to each county'

department and made available to the public.

IC. That State agencies design a method of verifying income consistent

and appropriate to, the means available o the low income persons

involved. (Thire is no legislatto )[, to ur knowledge;-which requires

employers toprnvide informatio Withholdings and. deduction',

etc. emplOyess as they are p id.)

L. Tb each State Plan be review d to determine if it allows all pos-

sible hardihipi, deductions, c reification pending verification of

eligibility,;41sisording until es. Income, etc. which benefit the

farm workqz. " Those itenis i does not inched, should be applied

for aitrenqednients inurnidia, ely, so they can be implemented as soon

as posaible,

That the State agencies cooperate with efforts to develop

awareness :of federal food programs and the SEGO sponsored nutrition

conference'.

223).

110-201, 6 ,, 72, 15

We Recommend that the Regional Poun request the Regional USDA Director'

to, give positivs,coneideration to the f011owintitersts and to instruct the:.

appra.priateLZ.ft to implement them;

A. That all USDA forms ha provided in Spanish.")

That instructions and explaaations of all forma beprovided inx both.

Spanish.

C. That these informations be la*such form that they may be taken (home

or out of the office) as a personal copy.. ,

D. That a copy of all applications be madef available to the participant

at his riquest for his personal records.

That Fah Hearing procedures be published and be provited to all

applicants.

F.' That USDA .regulate.,minini%trit standards of locatiops and hours of

operations based on convenience to the target population.

G. That USDA activiely participate'in the initial and on going training and

establishment of office procedures in project axes..

H. That USDA. detail what is required and What is acceptable for verif-

ication of income and monitor its implementatioa especially in the

case of farm worker's.

I. That USDA clarify and monitor the residency Zequiroment.

J. That USDA clarify and monitor emergency certification.

2 4 s

That USDA include is the State nab the above recommendation's

a, b, d, s, t, h, 1, j sodas

L. Upon acceptance, these Changes shall be sent to each county de-

partment and made available to the public.

.Mt, That proof of citizenship not be used as auriligiblity require-

ment for .participation in federal food assistance programa.

We recommend that the liegional Council request the Director roach State

Office of toonomic Opporrity to give, positive consideratio to the fol-

lowintitex and to instructili'mpprepriate staff impleient its

That they 000peratt.with CIO and MEW by initiating a statevide

working conf4rence, to be attended by representatives of

Poor people's quatazations, and concerned civic groups and public

agencimi. The purpose of the conference will be to review the.

,`current practice', !State Plan, regulations and - legislation of USDA

familr assistance programs-and make'reoommendationi for,Ommired

changes in each of these.

We recommend that the members of the imisional Council rive,consideration

to the following itesi and thatther.take action to implement its

That fUnding be se'ega available when necessary to hold. the &foramen-

tinned statewide su rritioa conferences, and thatteohnical assistance

be mad" available. ((n tho preparation of theme conferences when re-o

quested.

225

'Jr

e

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF PRESCHOOL, MEXICAN AMERICAN MIGRANT FARM CHLLDREN

./ . 4

H. PeteChos*,r" M.D.Assistant l'rofessor of Pediatrics

University of Colorado Medical Center4200 E. NIA Ave., Rawer, Colo. 80220 a

ViJoy KumarM.D.Reseorcitfellow in Pediatrics

University of Colorado Medical .Center

Janice M. Dodds, M.Ed..Nutritionist, Instructor otledlotrics

University or Colorado Medical Center

H. E. Souberlich, Ph.D.Chief of Chemistry Division'

U.S. Army Medical Resiarch & Nutrition LaborafOryFitzslmont General Hospital

Robert M. Hunter, Ph. D.Associate Professor of Sociology

.University of Colorado*

Robert S. Burton, M.S.University of Col orodO

Vaughn Spalding, R. N.Director of Migrant Health Services

Col onsdo Migrant dorintil

This work was supported by Grant J CG 8674 Emergency Foodand Medical Services, Title. II D, Economic. Opportunity Act

26

4%

ABSTRACT.

The riutritionai and medical problems of 300 Mexican-American

preschool children of migrant workers wire evaluated in the spring of

1969 in Outstanding in the history was the high infant

mortality of 63 per 1000 live births. Frequent findingson physical

examination included: low twig's-1' attainment, upper respiratory in-

fectiom, skin info/Hon:, dental caries, enlarged fivirs, hypertrophied

'tongue papillae, and conjunctival folliculitisa Biochemical testing

shoWed low vitamin A leIels in 159 children,,Iow alkaline phospflotase

1n'120 children, and low total serum proteins in 211 children. Fossils!.

methods for improVing the nutrition and Nalth of tliirmigrant children

are cilscussed.

GI

-2 2 7

226

.Migrant' form labor is presently being used in all states of the United States.

Because of a lock of uniform retard keeping, it is impossible to accurately

estimate the number of migrantformabOrers.' Estimates have ranged from

25,006 to 100,,0002migrcsnts annually in the state of Colorado, and ,

Colorado is believed to have the nineteenth largest migrant of

the fifty states.*Since discontinuing the usage of alien farM workers

transported from'autside the United States, there has been an apparent In

'create in family travel of migrant laborers, resulting in nutritional and

health problems for the children. Information ha not previously been.

ovailable.concerning the medical and nutritional problems of these children.

An earlier study described biochemical alterations in negro migrant workers ti

in New York state. A recent nutritional survey one in Texas4 probably,

also includes evaluation of some preschool child en of Mexican-American

farm workers. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the nutrition s+.

medical problemsof the preschool Children of the Mexican-Amoricon.form

Jaborers.

METHODS'

Three hundred Mexican-American children,age six years or below,

were studied In Moy rind Juno, 1969, Children were studied in two locations

each in northeastern and southeastern Colorado. They came to the clinics vol-,

untarily as a result of local publicity , were brought by yolunteen,..pr were r

seen ci one location in southeastern Colorado imhe first day of .a Hood Start

Infant Education School program. 'The evaluation included medical 'histories,

physicalexamtnatione, rind blood biocbemicai determinations. Heights and weights

were evaluated by mew* of the Boston Iowa Growth' Grids,.and hood circumference

on an international grid. 5interviews concerning food pdrchosing hobits and cooking

equipment,avpiloble to the family were conducted by a nutritionist (J.M.D..).

Weekly family shopping lists were compiled for forty randomly selected

228

227

Alhobototory lists were dons on venous blood samples drawn after overnight

fasting, or in a few cases, four hours after a meal. Vitamins A ond C, and

Arum and RBC folacins, were determined of the U.S.. Army Medical Reseorch

and Nutrition Laboratory, Denver, Colorado, by methods Wird in the National

Nutrition St;rvey.6,, Other blochemicardeterminotions were done in the

Colorado Generol Hospital Pediotrie Microchemistry Laboratory.7 N

RESULTS

Soclohigic Dota -

Sociologic data is available from. 151 Mexican American migFant

.families from which the 300 children were studied. One hundaid cnd

sixteen af"ihe families gave their horns base as. Texas, 26 were intrastate .

migrants who had left their homes seeking farm labor but Jived in

Colorado, and the remaining nine families wire from six other states..

All fathers were fo; laborers, Working a glean 'of 6.3 months per ye;x

in ogriculture and 1.8 months per yea: in other occupations.. Mean

educational 4tolninent for the fathers was sixth grads and for the

mothers, fifth grade. The mean annual. family Income was $1885, with ..

61% of the families having on income of less than $2500 per year and

84% under $3500. Twelve families (7.9%) received financial welfare

"assistonee in some form during the previous year. In 57% of the

families only Spanish was spoken; in 36% of the comities both Spanish

Oil English were spoken by at lead one of the parents; and in 7%

of the families only English was spoken. These Sociologic findings do

not differ From those gathered on a sample of 3500 Mexican-. American

migrant families bythe Colorado Migrant Council -between 1966 ond 1969.

This would ;uggest that our sample is' representative of the Colorado

Migrant agricultural populotion.

229

4

Q

Medical History-

TitOnwan number of pregnancies per mother was 5.7, with 29 of the 142

mothers having hod more than tort pregnancies. Sixty-five of the 825 pregnancies

resulted in miscarriages or stillBirths, for a fotol wastagsof,79/1000 pregnancies.

Fortyjight of the 760 liveborn children died within the first yearrof life, for on

infant mortality' of 63/1000 Infants. Mean family size was 6;6 persKis with 4.6

'children per family. - 'The 300 children were equally divided between males and females in all

age groups: 45 children were under one year of age, 31 were beh'veen age one and

two, 41,between hvo and three, 66 between three and four,. 59 between four and =

.five, and 58 were between the ages of five and seven years. One third of the

mothers received no prenatal core or nutritional supplements piir to delhiery.

Two hundred and thirty-am of the'300 childron'were born either in the hospital

or an .out- patient medical clinic. Mean birth weight was 3.2 kg., with 27 chilstren

weighing,less than 2500 gm at: birth. One third of the mothers initiated breast

feeding,, and 25% were still breast feeding when the cifild was twomonths old..'

Suppleinentory Vitamins were received by 10% of the children in Ow first six

months of life. Ono half of the children had received no DPI or polio immuni-t

zations. Twenty-four mothers gave a history of recurrent diarrhea (more than

one episode in the previous year) in their children. Ten percent of the children

had never been examined by a physician while 86% of the children two years

of age or older had never been seen by-a dentist.

Food Purchasing Mobil: and Dietary Adequacy

Thirty-five families reported spending $20-$30 per wick on food with

yve reporting higher expendiTures up to $60. When the shopping lists were priced

at the local malice, the families were found to have consistently over-estimated

the cost of their shopping lists by five to fifteen doftlqrs. The basic weekly food ,supply- for migrant families is reported in Tab!. I. There was little variation

220.

P

4

between type and quantity' of food purchased regordless of the family size",

However, there is no way to determine individual Intake from this data.

All of the families reported purchasing at least one. third df-The foods listed in

Column 2, Table) in addition to the standard Food supply when adequaie money

was avallobre. When the additiOnal money was available for the food, the mothers

reported that they purchased more meat, milk, fruit (owl's, bananas, oranges),

and vegetables (tomatoes andlettuce), In that order. If lets money :vot railable

those foods would be cut out In the reverse order. ,Candy, flavored beverages,

cookies, and sweet rolls were purchased in thesome amounts regrdless of the '

money avoiloble unless the income wor,drooticolly'reduced, in which cos. the

sweet foods were eliminated from the diet. There was olwavt a stove ln the

hose se for cooking, with one half of these being wood stoves. Less than ono-

eighth of the families hod running wales. Pumps In this yards were the .

means of securing water.

Physicol Examination Data on the 300 Children

Fifty-four of the 300 children wireless than the thirdpercentili

heIght(Figure 1), 17 were less than the third percentile for weight, 17

were below the third percentile for hood circumference. Hair dyspigma lotion

was noted in 21 children. Skin findings were prominent with hypericero is

,119 and skin Infections in 32 children: Angulor lip lesions were present n ten of

the children. Eye findings-wire also prominent, with Increased corneal vatculor-.izotlon in 23, dry wrinkled conlunctivae in 56, and folliculitis suggesti

trochomo in 29 children. Mucoid,or purulent nasal discharge was press

of the 300 children (23%). Hypertrophic tonote papillae were present i

(figure.2) and atrophic tongue papillae in 36 children. 1,arge tonsils we

in 67 and large cervical lymph nodes in 36 children. Thirtylnino perca

e of

in 69

69

e noted

t of,

all the children and 58% of the children over four years or age hod dent 1 caries,

with a mean of four caries per child, Upper limb muscle mass was (hare d in

31 and lower limb muscle MOSS in 28 children, Epiphystal wrist swelling was present

In 28 children and prominent rtb beading in 22 children. Livers were palpable more

than two centimeters below the costal margin In the rigit mid nipple lino in 49 of

2,31.4

the 300'chilaren. Skin fold measurementlwere below the tenth percentile

in 52 of 136 girls and 51 of 149 boys (Flours 3).

Lab\rotory Torsts

Hemoglobin and hernotocrit values are compared to normal values

for the stole of Colorado 8 as oil children hadjspn in the state at least two

Weeks. These normal values are similar to those obtained In a nutritional

survey of 725 preschool children in the United Stores! Forty -seven eedren

had hemoglobins below the tenth percentile for age, and forty-one °Mb:kirk.-

had hematoOrits below the tenth percentile -far age (Figure 4).

Levels of serum and RBC folacin, vitamin A, and vitamin C ore shown

in Table H. Twenty-nine children wire belotiv normal in serum folocin levels,

and three children were below in RBC folacin levels. One hundrid and

nine' Vdren (5814 were below normal In serum vitamin Alevels. Two children

we low in vitamin C levels.. .

,Laboratory results other than vitaminlevels are shown.in Table,Laboratory Ill. Serum .

alkaline phosphates* levels were low in 120 children, blood urea nitrogen" were

low In 49 children, and amylase activity was reduced in 16 children. Total

serum proteins wen low in 28 children and serum albumin in Z3 children. Serum .

carotene was low in 219 children. Cholesterol levels were low in 44 children

and high in 28. # N

DISCUSSION

The lack of medical core prior to and ,following delivery is likely reflected

in the high mortality rate in the Pint year of life. In this study, the Mexican*

American migrap,t infant mortality was found,to be 63 /1000 live births, compared

to 20/1000 live births for the overall United Stoles. The migrant neonatal mortality

is comparable to alimilar figure for the United States in the year 1930. The

migrant family infant: should be considered high risk because of the lack of

prenatal core, poor housing and sanitation, the lock of continuous post:

natal core, and, the need of the (million to travel with On infant Their present

.282

mean onnual fam

The migrant fa

states !menus

ti These corn

2.31

Income 0131885 pre-eludes the use of any hospitol facilities.

ies'ot this time do not qualify for Medicaid benefits in mast

hey must first qualify for some program of categorical ossittance. .nly include Aid to Dependent Children and programs to cssist the

disabled, and aged.. Rarely do mignsiing Mexican-American families

lack a father; onclhe is usually employed, Few; if ony, migrants eke, blind';'

disabled, 'or aged.' Thus, while residency hos been eliminated as.a'requIrment

forMedicaid, it has been of little liseto the migrant worker and his fomily.

Vitamin A deficiency was the molar medical problem found in thenigrant

children: One hundred and fifty-nine of 288 children ( 55%) had-Values'

In the less than acceptable range as determined by the National Nutrition Survey6

(Table II), A study'of plosma Vitamin A levels in preschool Children in the

United States recently found is mean value of 33pg% (S. p. =7.45P91.010 with .

2% of the children having values of 20pg% or less, a level of wbish they can

sidered night blindness' etectable. Fifty - ...seven of 288 children t20%)

hi this study had Vitamin A let/de:of 20p% or less. Vitamin A levels were

analyzed by one -way analysis of variantsll with items from the sociologic

data, medical histories, andphysical examinations os independent Variables,.

Analysis showed that mothers of infants who were deficient in Vitamin A

had a statistically greoter nirrnber*of pregnancies than mothers of children .

with normal 'Vitamin A levels (pc. 01). Vitamin A levels were also statistically

lower in infants whose methers did net receive nutritional supplementation during

pregnmay than in 'infants whose inothers'had received supplemental vitamins. It

is likely that the increased number of pregnancies had depleted maternal stores

of-Vitamin A, but it is also true that there were a larger number of siblings to

-"divide the available food amongst. Both of these factors were likely, important

In ceasing the low Vitamin A levels and could be approached through ,improved

prenatal care for the mothers and vitamin supplementation for the infants:. Nut

rition education will'also be impOrtant.

7.

Low vitamin A levels correlated significantly (p<.05) with an.increased

incidence of skin infections and upper respiratory tract infections on the physical

examination. Hypertrophy of the tongue papillae (Figure 2) also correlated statis-..

Healy with low serum vitamin A levels. Dryness and wrinkling of the cornea and

increased corneal voisculorizatian did not show any statistically significant car-

relation to.vitarnin A levels. XeroPitholmia was not detected in any,of the children

and dark adoptation was not evaluated. Gamma glotkulin levels were statistiC"011y

higher in children with low vitomin A levels (p< .05) and likely reflects the increased

number of infections. Improvement of vitomin A intake Would likely improve the

morbidity for infections in the migrant children..

The necessary time to raise serum vitamin A levels is apparently quite long.

We restudied nineteen children with low vitamin A' levels after o minimum of Z8

days in infant Education-Head Start over a six week period. They received two

meals and two snacks Per day in the school and oral vitamin drops frotil the school

nurse. In spite of this supplementation, serum levels were still low upon re-evaluation.

It is possible that liver stores must be replenished first in vitamin A deficiency, and

this is probably what was hoppening. It was not, however,. opprapNate to obtain

liver biopsies to more occurately assess the degree of vitamin A deficiency.

One hundred and three of 285 children (36%) were belowthe tenth percentile

for tricep skinfold mecturements (Figure 3) suggesting reduced caloric intdce for

these children. Height attainment was low in 54 of the 300 children cemeasured

by a U.S. Growth Grid (Figure 1). As it hos been reported that children of upper

economic class families in Mexico City,have height attainments imilor to the

U.S. GroWth Grids, n it oppears that tow height attainment may be related to

nutritional deficiencies. Using a one-way analysis of variants, the children with low

low height were found to have statistically lower vitamin C levels (F1/4.65) than

children of normal height. This does not !neon, however, that the low height ottainment

was specificolly caused by vitomin C deficiency. There wos no statistically signifi-

cant correlation between law height attainment and low vitamin A levels.

1

234

, Various blochemicat tests other than vitamin levels were determined on1

thee children because of,inefulness suggested in previous nutrition surveys, and

because of the desire to determine the best -screening tests for nutritional deficien

cies in this population. Alkaline phosphatase activity is important because if may

be elevated in children with rickets, but when it is low it may also be a useful. .

screening test for undernutrition. 13 One hundred and twenty.of 295children

in this study had`low alkaline phosphates* values, and-when analyzed by one.

way analysis of variance, the low, alkaline phosphatose values correlated

statistically (pc..01) with low height ettainment. Alkaline phosphatase values

were elevated in only four of the children despite a higher incidence, of rib-

beading and wide wrists. As the children with clinical signs of Vitamin D

deficiency were the same children who gave a history of not liking milk,_

they most likely were children with actiVe tickets. ft is known that-children

with rickets and undernutrition do not have elevation of serum alkaline phosphatase. 154

Further studies of migrant children should inclikle Xrays and serum calcium and

phosphorous determinations. Low BUN levels have been used as on indication of

poor nutrition, particularly low protein, intoke..13115 BUN levels were low

in 49 of 291 children., but did not correlate statistically with low serum protein

values. Low serum protein values were present in 28 children (Table Ill) end

correlated with higher phenj,lalanine to tyrosine ratios (1.24) than in children

with normal serum proteins (0,83;.p< . 01). As suggested,previously, the activity of

phenylalanine hydroxylase, Jehich converts phenylolanine to tyrosine, may be

diminished as a result of unciernutrition.16

Serum amylase levels have. also

been shown to be low in undernourished children13

but were low only in sixteen

of 281 children in thissstudy. Serum cholesterol concentrations ore also low in

undernourished children,13 and 44 of 288 children were low. Both loW cholesterol

levels and amylase a ctiviiy are likely related to decreased liver synthesis and

the children with low cholesterol values also had statistically lower protein values.

A surprising finding was that the cholesterol levels were obove normal in 28 of

the 300 children. .This may be related to the common use of animal fats in coiling.

As it is the current belief that cholesterol deposits start in childhood, if is't x

35

, 234

' 9,

...possible that this mallutrition,rnight be as dangerous as art some of the

deficiencies. Information concerning the mean age and the incidence of.

coronary artery disease would be of interest In the adult Mexican.

American, population. . :

Folliculitis suggest ve of trachoma wos an unexpected finding in

ten percent of these children. The pressinCe .of trachoma was verified by

Gloms.° and fluorescent' antibody staining. This is usuolly not a serious

disease in children, although somekfehildren did show evidence of secondory

infections. Trachomeds a major Cause of blindness in underdeveloped countries;

one father was seen coincide who was apparently losing his vision from

complicationsof trachoma. Four of his five children. were also infected.

Al present many existing, programs are unable to b. utilized by the

Migrant population. Inclusion of the migrant population in the medicare-.

mediCaid hospitalize programs withouf first meeting each. County': welfare4'

A certification practices would be of great benefit, Migrants usuolly do not

qualify for food stamps while traveling because of unequal earnings th`rouoir.,

out the year; food stamps have not yet been made available in their ham..

counties in Texas during the winter moqths, Recomtnendations.made at. the White

HoUseConference on Nutrition for food stamp certification once yearly and

applicable From state to state Would.be helpful, but this has not been acted

upon. Commodity foods have been of littl;value because of limited itetns

and the fribtorof pride, with a frequent history given for having been told

"you are song and able to'work-, so don't come bock here again." An

lianai problem concerning commodity foods is the storage of approximately.

thirty pounds of food per perion (frequently distributid on a monthly basis) in

a one or twO room &wiling. Lack of room; refrigeration, and protection from

rodents and insects would probably interfere with utilization of commodity foods

if they were readily available.

A possible solution to the problem of communication between migrants ..

onciezisting'heolth and welfare faeiiitiei is the introduction of migrant health

and nutrition aides into the Migrant stream. Withthe alteration of existing

program policies to accommodate migrants, and thisuse of health aides to make-

the programs known to the people, the health ancinutritional status of the

2 '6-

1.0

migrants could .be greatly impioved. Long term objectives of finding suitable

jobs and livingconditions Outside of the migrant stream will be necessary.

Adequate.hutrition, health care, education, and housing should receive

high priority in the piesent needs of the migrant farm worker and his family.

- .

23

REFERENCES

1. Colotie peportment at Heolth ; Annual Pre; less Report - State Migrant.

Heal th Program, MG-09-F-69 June 1968'- June 1969. Colorado Dept

of Health, Denver. (Publication 1'SH-D14(M)-53, 6-69-2).

2. Survey provided by Colorado Migrant Council In 1969, estimated from one .

day census token summer of 1969.

3. Thiel VF, BrinM, Dibble MV: Preliminary blocheinical findings In Pegro

migrant workers of Kingferry, New York. Amer J of Clin Nutr,21: 1229.-

1238, 1968.

4. McGonity W: Nutrition survey in Texas, Tows Medicine 65140 -49, 1969.

-I5. Nellhous G: Heod circumference from birth to 18 years: procticaltompoiitet ...of international and interracial graphs. Pediatrics 41: 106-114, 1968.

6. O'Neal RM, Johnson OC, SchaelerAE: Guidelines for classification. and

interpretation of group bloodand urine data collected os port of the Notional

Nutrition Survey, Pediat Res 4: 103-106, 1970.,

7. O'Brien Di Ibbott FA, and Rodgerson DO: Laboratory Manual' of Pediatric

Micro-Biochemical Techniques. Fourth editiori. New York, 1968, Harper..

& Row publishers.

8. McCommon RW: Hfrnon Growth and Development, Illinois, Charles .0 Thomas

Publisher, 1970.

. N9. Owen GM, Nelsen CE, and Garry P.J: Nutritional status of preschool children:

hemoglobin, hemotocrit, and plosmo iron volutss , J Pediat 76: 761-763, 1970.*10. Garry P.1, Pollock DJ, ood Owen GM: Nutritional status of preschool children

in the U.S.: P l mo Vitamin A determlnotions. American Pediatric Society

Atlantic. City, .J. , 1970, 'pp 254.

11. Freund JE, Livermore PE, Miller I: Manual of Expermientol Statistics. Edited

by AA Bennett, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice' Hall, pp 54, 1960,

12. Cravioto J: Personal Communication. Haspital Infantile. de Mexico, MexicoCity. ...

238

237

13, Wateriow JCS Proissin nutrition «14 enzyme changes In man. Fed Proc ..18; 1143

1155, \1909.;

..14, Reddy V, Srlicantia SG; Serum alkaline phosphotase in mbirsourished children with

rickets, .1 of Peds 71: 595-597, 1967.

15. Arroyave G: Estimation of relative nutriereintalcr and nutritional status hy*

biochemical methods: Proteins, Amer .1 of Clin Nutri1L447-461,1962.

16.. Cravioto11, Gomez F, Ramos - Golvan R, et 41: Protein metabolism in advanced

malnutrition. Concentrations of free amino acids In blood plasma. Pediotria

rnternazional (Roma) 9: .135;151, 1959.

17. Yahns r .1M: Standards for subcutaneous fat in British children. British Med Joumol

11'446-450, 1962,

Appreciation is expressed to Mrs. Carol Doblere, Mrs. Jost* Fotters, and Miss Noreen

Welch for their assistance in obtoinIng laboratory values, to Mrs. Yoye'Herman, Mr. Wayrie

Goad, and Dr. Nicholas Raica of Fitzsimons Nutrition. Laboratories for analysos of Folic.

Acid, VitOmin.0 levels, and Vitamin A levels respectively.

kr*

111.301 0 -12 r At

1.

239

4L

. TAIkLE I

PRIMARY FOODS IN Thli COLORADO MIGRANT FARMeWORKERS DtfT

ADDITIONAL. FOODS LESSER USED

%44 ______----- ADITION,.4,-.14 -------1.FOODS

Chuck roast ' Pork roast

Ribs stbrk chop;

BASIC FOOD ITEMS

Potatoes,.

Eggk Wheat Flour

Hamburger

Chicken

Dry cereal

Pinta beans

Rico

Macaroni

Lettuce

Tomatoes

Lard

Kool-Aid

Cabbage

Carrots

Canned ow,

Bananas - in lemon

Apples - Ln season

Ora02 In sonsfa

Milk

Bottled soft drinks

Conned Chili' (no meat)

Conned spaghetti

Sweet bread (rolls)

Corn flour

Variety moots

Cockle!

Oatmeal

Saltine Croakers

keret

loe cream

Sugar

co* (Hard)Potato chips

Corn Chips

Apple Wit*

Pineapple lulu*

Orange Poe

7->

.240

to to toto to to -al(s$11040 1.H9134

enOa*

Legend to figure 1 - Heights of Mexican-American migrantworictre children asmeasured on the Norwell Growth Grids. The lower solid line representsthe ;third percentile for boys while the broken lint represents the lowerthird percentile for girls. The upper solid line represents the 97thpercentile for both boys and girls. Ws represent girls and costsrepresent boys. Fifty four of the 300 Children were below the thirdpercentile in height for their oge.

241

is

/Ma

TlPni$ u**1143 00C 41 I° 69 ul puny; 03 4100131,1P y uponA JO hnistsans

natiol repaprod puo lopaiuo NtidowsdAH z u1814 01 Puglal

SKINFQLD THICKNESS (mm)

241

(W W) .SS1N>1014 PlOJNINS

Legend to Figure 3 - Skin fold thicknessehof lays (3A) and girls (35).The solid lines nrisiesent the tenth, fiftieth, and nirystieth perafiles. )and the broken lines represent the third percentile. '1 Fitly.twapt.136 girls and 51 of 149 toys wertbelovr, the tenth percentile.

it

213

242.

co

a)z2

co

CNI

Legend to Figure 4 - Hemoglobin and hematocrit values preschool.

Mexican-American Migrant children, The lines represent the iron,tenth, and ninetiely percentiles for normal Colorodorchildren.

g44

CO

h0

Hem

oglo

bin,

gm

/190

ml.

*. 6

1218

2420

3642

'48

5460

6672

Age

in M

onth

s

Tos Aussospe Seamus.. CsoliAs Xrrsersor144. SS, Xs. Woos. ISM OS. 704404

Prisist

special Article- s

'Nutritional, Status of California" Mexican-Azeiica.ns

A Review'

Parr B. BRAD/M.0 MD.. AND TIMMY BRUN,* =ACM.

253

Eating Patterns Among MigrantsFamilies

GRAC1ELA DELGADO, C. 1.. BRUMBACK, M.D., M.P.H.,and MARY BRICE DEAVER, M.S.

IN THE. RICH farming area of Palm BeachCounty, Fla., near Lake Okeecli6bee, an esti-

mated 20,000 migratory agricultural laborersharvest wintar vegetables from Novemberthroughlfily. -During tha-summer months diemajority tztvel up the Atlantic Coast, workingon farms as far north as New York State.

The nutritional status of this group is affectedby their eultimai background, inadequatelmowl-edge of the. nutritive value of foods, andeconomic problems arising from low and ir-regular income and the pressure of largefamilies: Methods of preparation and preserzration of food and the kin 'of cooking facilitiesuied are influenced by the type of housingavailable to them, Their choice of foods,methods of preparing meals, and likes and dis-likes are similar to those of other Negro groupsin southern States (1).

.The "project

The Palm Reach County Migrant Projectwas designed to develop public health tech-niques adaptable to the cultural and social pat-terns of migrant workers and to demonstratethe effectiveness of a 'multidisciplinary ap-proach to the health needs of the workers at the

Miss Delgado, at the time of the dietary stmiymigrant laborers, was nutrition consultant for thePalm Beach. County Migrant Project. Dr. Brum-Lack is health director, Palm Beach County, restPalm Peach, Flo.4nd Miss Deaver is director ofnutrition serviceslllFlorida State Board of Health,Jacksonville,

The project am financed by the Children's Bu.teats and administered by the Palm Beach CountyHealth. Department, under the supervision of theFlorida State Board of Health.

Okeechobee migrant labor camp in BelleGlade, Fla.

The project team was composed of two publichealth, nurses; a sanitarian, a `health educator,emedical social Worker, a nutritionist, s liaisonworker, and a secreta ryl. A pediatrician and i&general practitioner provided part-time health,services.

Plans for a dietary study on a selected groupof families were prepared by the project teamnutritionist, in collaborAtion with the directorof nutrition services of the FloridaState Boardof Health and the regional nutrition consultantfor the area. The objectives at the study were

To obtain information concerning the eatinghabits, buying practices; food customs andbeliefs, nutritional adequacy of the diet, and thegeneral nutritional 'status of ,the study group.

To secure data that would proildwa basisfor "Zscoveling pi ical and usable educa-tional techniques in nutrition.

To Use certain educational techniques ingiving information-about nutrition.

To evaluate the techniques used. .

This paper reports on the data obtained oneating habits, buying practices, food prepara-tion, nutritional aclequaty of diet, and nutri-tional status of a selected population in the106ject area: Subsequent reports will dealwith other aspects of, the study, including s.3-daY dietary study of the children of theselected families.

The Study. Population

Most of the workers at theDkeechobie mi-grant labor camp are American Negroes fromGeorgia and Alabama. They spend approsi-mately 7 months c. yent- at the canap, living in

VOL 76, Igo. 4, April .1961 369'

wooden, concrete, or tin houses of from .oneto three 12- by 16-foot rooms. Their childrenattend the elementary school at the. camp,

Because of limited time and staff, only 35 ofthe 350 families living at the camp were selectedfor the study. These families had been in themigrant labor stream for some time, had school-age children, and had attended the well-familyclinic at the -Belle Glade Health Center.. The objectives of thisivell-fatbily clinic areto determine the health status of the migrantgroup and the extent to which they will acceptpreventive health services. In selecting fami-lies to be invited to attend the clinic, the healthcenter endeavors to obtain a cross section of themigrant community. the only specific require-ment is that no obvious major health problemsexist in the families selected. A fairly com-plete health history and evaluation of each fam-ily participating in the study was available tothe migrant project staff.

Forms and Records

A 24-hour recall diet reenrd,aloodinventeryform, and a generalinformatipaforramero used

` to obtain information on the nutritional statusof the study families: Information. for the 24-hour recall record was obtained from the motheror other person responsible for plahning andcooking the meals. A set of interview formswas pretested with one, family to determinewhether or not they understood the questions.

Five forms were developed for evaluating thedata: record of intake of food groups, to showthe average daily and weekly intake of food foreach family ;. caleulation of food intake, foranalysis of nutrients; cost analysis form, to pro.vide a cost breakdown of the foods t urchnsect;weekly food plan, to show the' food needs ofboth children anti adults, and food-pricingrecord, to show average prices for the-area.

Intervtewing Procedure

Ilia project nutritionist obtained the assist-ance of the migrant project nurse responSiblefor the Okeechobet camp and the migrant proj-ect liaison worker in helping to explain thepurpose of the sttuly to the families.

Detailed information on foods eaten was ob-tained through home intervieirs. All inter-

350

viewing was done by the nutritionist of the,migrant project. Six. familiei were seen eachweekr startin,, with three families -the firstweek. Each family was visited three. times, .

Those teen on Monday morning were revisited.the middle of the week and agitin on the follow.ing ,Monday morning. The same procedurewas followed with families seen first on Tues. ..

day, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Satur-day Each day a new family 'was added to theones visited a second time.

The initial visit was devoted to a brief ex-planation of the study, establishment of confi.dence dnd rapport, starting the general infor-motion form, and beginning the food inventoryand 24-hour recall record. The general infor-mation form was completed during the secondand third visits'. The inventory whi checked"attthe midweek visit and completed at the list

An a rule, the families were helpful and co-operative. They showed the nutritionist allgroceries on the Shelvel and in the refrigeratoror icebox, the dishes, silverware, and cookingutensils.

Except in three families, the mother was theperson interviewed:' In these families, the olderdaughters were interviewed because the motherswere Working and the daughters were cookingthe meals. The 24-hour recall and general in-'formation forms were filled out during infOrmalk. converser The interviewer trie

not to ask tqo questions but rather l',4)the mother tighter to discuss Mealsfood prep n themselves.

Cooking Schedules and Foods goten

The 24-hour diet recall and general infOrma.;lion records showed that mrst families cookedtwice a day when theywere all workim Jaidthree fillies a day when the mother staved atborne Usually they carried some7fire-loafrom the morning meal to the field --and re-heated some of it when they came liOrne latein the afternoon. They cooked meats, such aschicken, pork chops, ribs, sausage, or fish, veryearly in the morning.' AlLtooked gritSsirr themorning and sometimes rice,. coma;bread, and pokitoes. Most lanidresJastbs:-.along with the grits, and fried whiteVicon 4)"-,sausage.

Public !leapt% licpciiif,

The following examples give the daily menusfor families cooking ti ieet and three times nday;

Cativo bore Twice. Par .

Breakfast (6:00 a.m.): Fried chicken, rice,..srarr,,-biscuitss, sausage; and grits.

Lunch (11:30 a.m.) tAdults (In the 'field): Cookies or laindwich and

'soft drink:Children (at home): speshettl, 1 can for 4 chil-

dren; milk, %rant per child:Diaper (7:00 lktn,): Black-Oed peas with white ba-

con, rice with neckbones, and white bread.

cooking Pone Thro flawsa newBreakfast (6;00 a.m.) Grits, cm white bacon, toast,

and butter.Lunch (117.30 a.m.) : Stew meet, rick snap beans.

white potatoes, Rehr bread, and cola drink..Dinner (7:00 pan.): Spareribs, macaroni anti ace*

linht bread, and chocolate milk..

WOinbn were heads of households saidthey cooked a large breakfast so that they could:stay longer in the fieldwithout eating too.inuchlunch. Sometimes they bought fish sandwiches,hot dogs, cookies, peanut and chocolatecandy, and Soft drinks at the field, and somecarred,shoketrieoiltoektihere. For smalldamn remaining nt home or attendingschool, the mothers left. canned foods, such aspork and beans or spaghetti; and bread coldcuts, peanut butt A-mayonnaise, and jelly forpreparing sandwiches. SometimesDented some, of the food cooked in the morningand ate it nt lunchtime.

For the evening meal most families ate corn-bread, black-a-red ,peltaWaeon.,,,erjugslieetiaml vtetables sirch:gs Deas.sablage_apRevenges prepared from conunerciP1.1)01rdel;iced tea, and En till amounts of milk wereServed. at this meal. Ne,c1drantandzigaLfeet,

milt were L it every day.Canned tomatoes. yeas, and corn were Used

inseme extent. The most common fresh %lab-hliles were grin liming and cabbage. Tuamip;;revue and collards Were grown in small gar-+Ms around some of the houses. ,Canned foodsf,:"LaLaparjletti. pork, auf_beans, beef stew,

chicken were_popular. bleed. hams pea-mit butter,..mayougise,anCjelly sandwiches"ere consumed mostly at lunchtime Craerere,

rn114, *20 tn(t#411:0141:4-`1:9:-illt(Lta...altirgt..extrnt fro lnneh and be;

extensively..The fresh fruits Most commonly seen were

bananas. grapes, and apples. Canned peacheswere well liked; driest primes were seen' n rareocenti(mii., Citrus' fruits were used 'whenevereconomic conditions wo.nhl.perinit. Some fam-ilies used eanned. grapefruit and orange juice,and some bought j tangerines, oranges, andgrapefruit when they were in season and priceswent down. Citrus fruit is not grown plenti-fully in this section and is often available onlyin stores.

Very-little. milk was-purchased. Fresh to,mogenized milk was consumed in small quan-titles, and some buttermilk was used. Dryedit' milk was used by families who bid beantaught its value. Evaporated milk was usedmostly for infant. formulas. Cheddar cheesewas eaten: in small amounts.

DrinailmaheanS4uniillaryaPssia-msrsthe most common legumes eaten. lisilkiskorbetu_mpinto beans. and_great northern beans"versa used less tommstnir and only by a fewfamillei. Grit were the favorite cereal andwere eaten daily, often tWo or three times aday. text in order of consumption were rice,oatmeal, and dry cereals, such as corrillagi:Dry cereal might be eaten in the morning orbetween meals.

Sliced white bread was popular and, because- of lack of time for- baking, other ready-pre.

pared breadS were Ividely used. Collin-mai and.self-rising floti were used blareparing...eadsat home. Occasionally' this diet included bis-cuits and commercial or homemade cakes andpies.

liargarine, butter. larkvegetable shortening,oil, and mtivonuaiso were used for frviagSidfor preparing various dishes.Sem:es,..antt Marmal det,Andlngwr, sirup, can-

and_solt.,,drilis..,gere almost alwaysitutieLltes1,17gtooery...liete coffee,

I ten, and cocoa were sometimes used, but pow-dered and soft drinks were preferred.

VA 76, (. 4, April 1961

Buying Practices and Food Preparation

The majority of the families shopped forriekon Saturday. A :few mentioned Fri-

ay and Sunday as days to shop. The mothers

251

a

and older daughters usually .bought. the gro-ceries, but sometimes the husbands and oldersons did the shopping. Many families traded.in cheinstores when money was available.When money was scarce, they traded.in smallstores at the housing camps or at farms oncredit. The families with refrigeration shoppedweekly; the one without refrigeration shopped'daily, A few vegetables, such es beans, cab-bage, colery,and corn, were obtained free fromfarms or from small gardens close to home.

The women usually did the cooking, althoughon rare Occasions their husbands helped. ,Em-ing 'And horfiermieg were the most commonmethedsafazigkingMeetspLfowl. Vega-tablesand1=unts,...suchasdriterms.and black -eyed peas, were cooked in water with*ben, implre,, white bacon, Digs' feet, ears, tails,or neekhopes for added flavor. Neckbones werei'preferrea food. Cornbread and hoecake madefrom self rising flour were cooked almost daily'in skillet% on top of the stove. Biscuits warebaked in small portable omens on top of thestove. Cakes and pies were baked on Saturdaysand Sundays.

Association with other cultural groupsJamaicans, Bahamians, Cubans, and PuertoRicanshas brought new ideas in food prepa-ration to these families, and some of them hadlearned to prepare new dishes from these othergroups.

Kitchen Equipment :. .

Thirty: -four families lied some kind of refrig-eratiort.:_,P owned electric refrigerators thatthey thaliselves had purchased; 6 had icebosesprovided by the housing project. .Tiventpfonrfamilies had bottled -gas stoves with ovens, and11 had 3 or 4-burner kerosene stoves, 3 of themequipped with small portable tin ovens.

All the families owned didies, glasses, cups,silverwie, cooking spoons., eggbeaters, perm.lators, %dishpans, buckets, and can openers.Drawings of serving spoons and plates weremade by the interviewer to get au idea of thesize of food portions consumed by various mem-bers of the family. Servings varied in size.Plates and serving spoons of various sizes wereused. Some families used a large cooking spoonforeerving food, while-others used a tablespoon.

Non`e of the homes had running water insidethe house. "Water for drinking, cooking, dish. .

washing, and other household purposes Wasobtained from faucets outside the housowas carried in by male members of the family,The water was kept in buckets, frequently witha dipper inside which was used as s drilling 'cup by all members of the family.

Evaluation of Diets

The family diets were analyzed ml the basisof food values given in the food composition ." lis-table% of the U.S Department of Agriculture

Table 1. PerCenfage of families mooting Na.*tonal Research Council nutrient allowances

Nutrient

Fraction of allowances met

Total i if-fi Below !conc.

CaloriesProtein.CalciumIronVitamin AThiamineVitamin CRiboflavin

20 40 3437 11 46

66

.14 524 23

263 26 17

0 26 42433 11

2917 66

20 20 34 26

00

o00

0

Table 2. /*ensilage of ;families meeting U.S.Department of Agricultural Allowances, by

. food _groups

Fraction of allowances met

Food groupTotal Below w Naito

NritC"'"Green and.yel-

low vegetablesCitrus Mitts and

tomatoesPotatoes and

sweet potatoesOther fruits and'vegetables

. :Refiscta, poultry,

Dry beans.EstiFlour and cerealsFidi And oils,Sugar and pro.

serves

0

0

2

2

4394

soas60

0

0

$

12

3822

158

23

3

0

$

8

6

82

1402

S

91

48

14

60

110

52

0

63

34

20

2

00

. 352 . Public Hcalth Depori.

25'0

(2) anti "Food Values of Portiope Commonly(S). k a large percentage of the study

group, consumption of certain nutrient* wasbelow half the amounts recoinnwided by therood and Nutrition Board of the National Ito-search Council (3). ..tmong thesswere vitaminC, in 09 percent of the families; vitamin A, in49 percent; and ribollaVin end calcium, in 26percent. In only percent, however, did theprotein and caloric consumption fall:below half

, the-retonunanded allowance (table 1);In evaluating the diet (6), it was fotutd that

29 families (63 percent) Ate no gitert or yel-low vegetables, and 13 families (37 percent) ateless than half the recommended nllowance.Seventeen families (48 percent) fell below halfthe recommended allowance in consumption ofcitrus fruits and tomatoes, and.12 families (34percent) ate nothing from this foOd group.Thirly.four, families (97 percent) fell belowhalf the recommended allowance for milk. and.milk products (table 2).

Food 'Costs

. A price record was kept of foods bought froma. large store and from a small store patronizedby the study families. Prices were collected inths two stores during ihet period February-April 1939. Aft average cost was computedand a cost analysis of the diets was made (table3). From $18 to $22 per week, about half theirweekly earnings, was spent for food by the 18families which had from 7 to 9 nwmbers each.

Table 3.

257

According to Ilepartment of Agriculture stand-ards, from $33 to $47 would be required to feed ,

faMilies of this size a low-cost Adequate diet.Ikwever, this would mean that all food wouldbe 'purchased, whereas some of the food eatenby the study families was obtained. withoutCost, for example, food which, was broughthome from the fields.

Medical and Dental Findings

physical examinations were mods as partof the nutrition study, but rersaits of examine,-tions made in the health department hliniCs ,

showed an apparent relationship between thedietary medical findings. Families withlower Intakes of necessary nutrients had diag-noses, of rickets, marasmas, kwashiorkor;obesity, emaciation, nutritional anemia, andmalnutrition, ns compared with persons in theremainder of the group.- 3fany of the childrenin time families with lower intakes of nutrientsAvers pale and underweight, And eight Adultswere markedly 'obese. Two women gave ahistory of iniscntriages.

A detailed dente] study of both adtilts andchildren by the bureau of dentsahealth, FloridaState Board of Iteulth,. revenled -that 84 percentof thepersona examined had dental caries, and35 percent hnd' lost permanent teeth.

The dental study Also showed 40 persons with. dry and cracked lips, 14 with spongy gums, 27

, with gums that bled easily, .21 with slightand 16 with siOLsofsevere gingi-

Summary of information on 35 migrant families,i Okeechobee migrant labor camp, belleGlade, Fla.

Number of families

..___.

Membersper family

Age range of ebild;enNumberrooms in

boors

Averageweekly

earninp

Averageweekly

expenditurefor food

3245$5251

I .A,.

,.

1211109$76543

2 yrs.-20`yrsII suls..111 yrs3r:10 -13yr'2371.-14 yrs1 yr.-20 yrs1 yr.-13 yrs3 yrs:4122 yrs1 yr.-13 yrs. ..

10 yrs.I2 yrs11 yrs

i

2222211111

$10404047433676443054

'

.

$32203322191$IS1510

. 17

both husbands and wives work in the beide; the men sometimes engage in construction work. The wages veryat certaln times.

Vet. 76, Ns. 4,, April 1941

251

353

Vitis. These findings indicate a definite rela-tionship between dental caries and problemsof the gums and lips and a low intake of pro-tective foods.

At stated in the clinic records and by theMothers at the time of interview, most of thebabies-and children had been taking vitaminpreparations on prescription from an early.age.

? .Comments

s.,...Although the study group was composed of

only 3 of 150 families in a Negro populationwith migratory characteristics, in all probabil-.ity their eating habits and nutritional problemsare similar to those of cultural'groups of the -same racial characteristics and economic andsocial conditions living in camps in other areas.The families studied may be somewhat 'abovethe ver age since they wire selected fromarno g the apparently well families included inthe lay clinics. They had been exposed to

ucation as to dietary and other measures theymight. take to keep well, and were "educable,"as indicated by thew acceptance of clinic care.

The most common diet deficiencies' revealed .. by the study were low intakes of milk, green .

and yellow vegetables, citrus and other fruits,eggs, and white and sweet potatoes. Legumes.;and meats were eaten in fair quantities; sweets,fats, and flour consumed were above the recont-rOndel-amounts in some cases, -

Fish were well liked and were a good sourceof protein, anctthey could be had at no cost to .families who entiayed fishing. Pork chops, ham,and steak were eaten when money, to buy them-was available. Pointing out differences be.tween prices of these and other items could behelpful in teaching the group to use the moreexpensive foods in lesser amounts, qt,t1 to put..chase cheaper sources of protein. This wouldleave money for such foods as citrus and otherfruits, green and yellow vegetables., including-sweet potatoes, and milk, which were consumedin amounts below riCommended allowances.

ince buttermilk was well. liked, the use of.--.9ty skim milk to prepate it could be stressed.

Time possibilities of using dry milk powder withother familiar foods, such as adding it to corn-meal for making cornbread, to hamburger meat.

353

and to chocolate powder or juices tlutt are siltedby 'the .chiltirest should also be encouraged.

The high consumption of fats, sweets; flour,and soft drinks could be responsible in part forthe obesity of some adults in the study group.

The need for education concerning nutritionand basic health is evident. However, coati&'ration should also be given to housing, cookingequipment, hours bf work in the field, timespent at home, number,S &tidiest in the lawily, earning capacities, reffiel sipenets, utilities,and transportation facilitteakwhich directly af-fect an education program' Hilealth and nutri.tion. The amount of money available for foodindicates that Very careful planning and budg-eting are necessary if Migratory- families are tohave adequate diets. Since none of themshowed evidence of planning ahead, it will takepersistent efforts over a period of time to bringabout changes in their buying habits.

These families need basic information on allaspects of nutrition and food preparation, andthis can only be achieved by well-rounded,integrated /Program,- with all agencies, bothofficial and voluntary, which deal with *thesefamilies working toward improvement of theirhealth, educational, and social conditions.Tkese agencies would include the health depart-ment, the schools; HA agricultural extensionserrioe, and the welfare deportment'

summary

A study of the diet pattern* of n group ofNegro migrant families living in n labor campin Belle Glade, FM., revealed a lack of certaingroups of protective foods. It also pointed upthe need for better use of the foods availableand for a wiser selection of foods purchased inrelation to the amount of money spent.

The molt significant findings of the studywere the following:

1. Low consumplbn of milk and milk prod-ucts. Howe't;O: di4 to the extensive use ofselfrisingflottr,the 6Icitun content of the dietswas higher than expected. Riboflavin contentof the diets was low.

Et. Low consumption of green and yellowvegetables and low vitamin A content of the

Public liculth Itcporit

259

3. Low consumption of citrus and otherfruit; and low vitamin C content of the diets.

4. °reciter consumption of proteins than ofthe nbovementioned groups of foods, How-ever, the amounts of animal protein eaten bythe-larger families were too smell to meet thedietary requirements for the family as a whole.Legumes were consumed in amounts above thoserecommended by the Food and NutritionBoard. of the National Research Council. Thisrelied tits iron content of the diets.

5. Consumption of starches, fats, and sweetsin excess of the recommended amounts. How-ever, the calorie allowance in the diets of 80 per-cent of the families is low.

liffAINCIS

(I) Great, P. W., tad Groom, D.: Diorites studs*meat a group of southern egroos. 3, Ass.Meta A. 33: 1110-09, Scotonobor 1030.

(3) Watt, 111. X., et AL: Composition of goods raw,preetsMd, prepared. Agriculture 11Andbriok2. Washington. 13.04 U.S. Cotersisont Pristine(Ace, 1930.

(0) B.W1111, A, D., sad Church, C. r.r 340 colnooof partloss coinsurer used. Ed. S. ehllodol-obi*, College Offset him. Jauwrs VEAL

(4) Xatienot Acodenly of SclootioNntlosal BoonrellCouncil: Recoutiondod dietary' allenesaci.N'All-NRO Pah. No. 010 (Iltritod).toe V.S. Corenusent Prlittliog OZoo, 100S.

(5) ILL Elopattioent of Agslcultnn: Nutritionup todate up to yrs. Itullottn,1031.

Training Courses.

front 5.1 Axelrod, M.D., UnAsity of Michi-gan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor.,

Hospital Administration. The Sloan Intel-tuts of Hospital Administration at CornellUniversity will hold its fourth annual IthspitalAdrniaistrators Development Program fromJune 23 to July 21, 1961.

The 4week prdgrarn will cons ht of an in.tenure course of lectures, readings, and dis-cussions divided into three seminars dealingwith medical care, the administrative precise,

16 and trends in hospital administration.Partkipetion will be limited to about 25

persons selected from among the applicant,.Total cost to participants will be $100,ing tuition, supplies, room, and most of themeek. Additional details may be obtainedfrom Prof. Frederic C. LeRocker, director,Sloan Institute of Hospital Administration,Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Water Pollutlers Conference, Public!smith hazards of microbial politition of waterwill be the subject of Us* Rodolphe ResearchConference at Rutgers University, June 19-21,1961. Three sections of the conference willdeal with the public hied' problem, indicatororganism' and their significance, and diainfec-tiontheory, objectives, and accomplislunento./: or further Information communicate with'Dr. If Heukelekian, Chairman, Department ofSanitation, ifutgers University, New Brans-wick,

Denial Education. A shod courts forclinical dentists employed lett public healthagencies will be offered at the. University of

, North Carotin" School of Public Health fromJuly 24 to August 4,1961. Addith;nal detailsstay be obtained from Charles M. Cameron,Jr., M.D., University .of North Carolina,Chapel Dill,

Medical Care Administration. The Uni-versity of Michigan School of Public Health isconducting straining institute on Adminfsera.Lion of Medical Caro for the Needy from July10 to July21, 1961. Collaborating in this In-ititute are the School of Social Work of theUniversity of Michigan, the American Public,Welfare Association, the American PublicHealth Association, the Bureau of Public As-sistance of the Social Security Administration,and the Public Health Service.

The institute is designed for State and localpublic welfare and public health personnel withA.:61111,411.4dr. responsibility for the needy.Together they will study the planning, admin.istration, and evaluation of these programs;discuss the relationships of these programs tocommunity health senlces and medical careprograms for the entire population; exploreways by which health and welfare departmentsmay work together; and consider new ap-proaches to the provision of medical are.

Additional information may be obtained

Vol. 74, NO. 4, April 101

--253

$51

260

Responsibilities of a Nutritionist in the Migrant,/ Day Care Programs

1. Serves nutritionally adequate and palatable food'under the stricteststandards of sanitation and within the budget allotted.

2.. DevelOpet'Tolicies and procedures relative to food and nutrition ser- .vices in the centers to to purchase of equipment;'and services,personnel and salary ranges, catering aud.other.activities of concernto the centers.

3, Plans menus to meet the nutritional standards set for each age groupin the center; standardizes bedpan for use on theMenu and to allowcost control; and supervises production of menus at the centers.

4. Establishes standards to be maintained in food production, food .service, sanitation and safety, and-insures that local sanitaryand restaurant codes are adhered to. .

$4, Plane floor and equipment needs,. layout, and utilization of equip-ment at each center..

a6. Estimates numbers of persons to be Served, than determines quantitios

of food needed. to purchace and givers,. ordering and delivery schedules,and bidding prOcedures.

7. Prepares a budget which itemizes all costs:' equipment, physical, plant,"labor, food, non -food supplies, operation & saintance, inventory, -pro»cerement and transport, and storageo% 0 :

.8. Prepares in annual budget reporting coats of operation and stating. needs for the following year -.this should include costs per meal;

cost jer child age 2-5 yrs; coot per child age 04 yrs; cost peradult./

9. Establiehes stuffing patterns and plans for changes based on pre-dicted trends and changes in services.

10. Identifies activities and tasks required to prochice food, divide*them into poeitiOns; selects personnel to meet the table of organi-zation » without duplication of responsibility or overstaffing.

.

11. Establishes ,z1c4) descriptions (assigned responsibilities & autbority)and work schedules for each titer position and routinely evaluateseach position.

12. Trains, supervises, directs, motivates, and disciplines all staff,establishing effective communication with them.

,254

261

13. Periodically evaluates self, staff, and the progress of centerkitchen and nutrition services in a constant attempt to improve.

14. Makes specific dietary adfustments in the meal plans for child-.ren with special dietary needs.

15. Collects periodic data on the dietary intakes of children in thecenters and summarises this information with data from the healthevaluatienn'to determine,the nutritional status of the childrenand to note progress resulting from nutritional services at thecenter.

16. Supervises nutritional aspects of care of infanta and preschoolers.

17. Provides continuous in-service education to infant and preschoolcenter staff, including assisting teaching staff with planning andimplementation of nutrition educatton experiences for the children..

Provides nutrition education opportunities for families residingin the camps with snphaais on normal nutrition, food economics,and storage and preparation difficulties encountered in migrantliving.

,.

19. Coordinates nutritional iCtiviiies with overall educational goals)and activities planned by Regional and State Educational staffs.

20. Reports routinely in writing and in contersixru to the Interagenc4CCouncil on present situations in the centers, perinent-observatkon;,future plans, and cost efficiency of operation.

Audrey T. Cross, M.P.H.Nutrition ConsultantDuman of M.C.H.S.D.P.H.August 27, 1971

255

262

NUTRITION XYALUAT/ON

Migrant Infant Day Care1971

(Note:' Cements apply also to Preschool Program as food serviceis shared)

.limited' progress has been made during the 1971 year in food and nutritionservices in the Idgrant.Educationmgrams. Ability to progress continues .

to be Severely beepered by lack of qualified personnel.to.odminieterthe foodservicestprogram and lack of quilifilid nutrition education input for teachers,cooks, parent, and children,.

Nutritional adequacy of the meals served varied greatly between center-ft andwithin a center from one day to the next. In anettempt to offer eonsiitentand uniform nutrientintakee to the children in Regimen and to controlposts and ordering and delivery scheduling, a Cycle menu was prepared andapproved by both the Stato Department of Public Health and the Bureau of .

Food Services., State Department of iddcation.

Unfartumtely,Minus were not adhertid to and substitutions made were not alwaysequivalent in nutrient content. Adaptations made for infants frequently'didnot meet the infants needs for foods appropriate to their developmentalability or nutritional need.. Cultural foods were infre6intly. included.

En Region III head teachers wrote weekly menus. As nutrition and food serviceknowledge of teachers is limited, if not non-existent, menus were often -

inadequate as written and also suffered from substitutions as in Region IX. .

The qualifications and skills of the cooks varied. Several had both trainingand experience in School Lunch Programe;most had little or no training orEmPaTimice other than cooking for their. own families, which contributor littleto qtantity cookery knoiledge and management skills.

The staff were, however, all willing and anxious to leprn and improve and wouldhave benefited from planned and continuous inservice education under the super..vision of a qualified nutritionist or dietitian. Cooks and. teachers exprOsed-a need for cook's inservice education including menu planning, operation andmaintenance of institutional equipment, quantity food preparation techniques,food purchasing, and time management and production scheduling.

Staffing patterns at the centers were irregular and not related to the numberof meals served, the type of menu, nor the limitations of the facilities. The

approximate ration of meals served per cook were as follows: aridity.33 meals /cook; Dixon 40 meals /cook; and Harney Lena 47 meals /cook. Insufficientstaffing can lead to poor quality service while overstaffing is a waste of laborcost. These inconsistencies in staffing reflect lack of administrative abilityto deterviine staffing needs.

Facilities were also inconsistent between canters and, with the exception ofGridley, grossly inadequate for the number of meals served. Equipment was

256

263.

A

poorly lard out leading to work flow:inefficiencies; there was inadequatestorage apace for dry foods (at Barney Lane they are stored in the headteacher's office); refrigeration spate was also limited. None of the centershad dishwashers. .only Gridley had a epmmercial mime mixer.

None of the kitchen facilities were inspected or approved by a sanitarian.It is my opinion that only Gridley would have passed such an inspection astie other'centers had minimal facilities and as meny of the cooks lacked

ledge of sanitary procedures in institutional settings,

It\is impossible to determine the coati of the food service operations undercurrent bookkeeping end ventory methods., Recorieof expenditures are obicure,inaccurate, and contrail tory. There is no accurate information, on colts ofoperation per child per day by age; coati per Region; costs per adult (staffvs Visitors); percents e of costs as raw food vs percentage as labor; Ter,cent ge of raw food c ate as protein, vegetables, fruits, etc.'', costs ofnon- obi items such paper pods, janitorial supplies, gas and electricity.With t this inform* ion, it-is not possible to make effective management

.

decis ons.

It is known that f budgets were being used to purchase. items for use in theday care program s ch as pencils, pampers, construction paper, etc. Themiare not food cos but were charged to the food budget.

/erous.procedural decisione were made without adequate knowledge ofternative methods of meeting nutrition or food service needs and without

consideration of the affects on costs. For example, in both Regions II andIII many foods were purchased from local grocers at retail prices and wereTicked up daily by either the cook or the head teacher. This was a wastefuland inappropriate use of personnel, and an expensive method of food purchase,which reflects lack of qualified personnel indecision- making positions.

tiReiMbureements for food service were not consietent between Regions. WhileRegion III received only Migrant Education funds for food service, Region IIreceived 49X/child/hay reimbursement in federal funds through the Bureau ofFood Services, State Department of Education (30% National School Lunch Program,15% Federal breakfast Program, \20% Snack Program). This could be construedas a form of discrimination which offered Region III lens opportunityto meet the nutritional needs of children in its centers.

Region II complained that federal commodity foods did not arrive when neededfor food services. For the moat pert, this was due to lack of planning basedon quantity recipe needs, number of persons to be fed, and delivery schedule,and was not duo to any inefficiencies on the part 9g the State Surplus Office.In addition, full use was not made'of commodities due to lack of stendardie04,quantity recipes (these were available but cooks had not been teainci to um,them) and lack of adequate equipment for preparation (especially mixers andoven space).

t

Various persons presented short,(e.g. 1-2 hours) presentations on nutritionfor cooks, parents and teaching staff (nutritionists from the Stete Departmentof Public Health and the bureau of Food Services, State Department of Education,and home economists from Agriculture Extension). These presentations were ofquestionable value as there was no overall plan to meet specific nutritionedacction nocdo in the, cc :tar; no ccnaictncy tetleen person providing input,

1.

5.

25,7

264

- 3-no continuity in content and inappropriate use of rersoni providing input.For example, a base economist (who is not trained in quantity foods) taughta class for the cooks in food preparation; a school lunchnutritioniit'(whois skilled in this area) was instead asked to do parent education, and -11translator (with no backgroiux1 in nutrition). was paid $$0 to do a shortcourse in nutrition for parents. Criticaluede for nutrition and foodservice id tion fOr teaching staffvcooks, parents end children were notMet nor did he above tokenism contribute to improvimentAin this area.

In en atte to solve many of its food service operation problems, Reginn IXformed a Nu rition Steering Committee. The committee offered an opportunityfor cooks head teachers to meet monthly but could accomplish little elseas collectiv decision. making by unqualified persons does not change thequality of the debision made. The group was allowed to make decisions oflittle importance which could have easily been made by one person (e.g. thatteachers be allowed to receive free lunches if eating with the children;that purchase receipt be mailed weekly instead of monthly). Recommendationsby the committee which could have made Major changes in operations were, neierexecuted (e.g. that a-qualified nutritionist be hired to coordinate theirfood services and to institute a cook's training program). The Bureau ofFood Services of the State Department of Education concurs with the opinionthat the committee accomplished little as urgaiiized and is noi a substitute

for qualified management.

RecoMmendationa c-The Interagency Day C Committee has endorsed the need to improve the

quality orbutrition ood services in the Migrant Day Care Programa

and has recommended the e nt of a qualified nutritionist to whomthiaresponsibility will be delegated. Xt is imperative that action be takenimmediatelyto hire a nutritionist' who begin to plan for the 1972orerations (see attached).

Under authorization of the Lewis iall health care and nutritional standardswill be set by the State Department of Public Health and it must be theresponsibility of the Regional Director to see that these etendards aremet.

A arecific budget must be designated for food and nutrition. services.

Audrey T. Cross, M.P.H.Nutrition ConsultantBureau of Maternal and Child Health,State Department of Public Health12/29/71

258

SUGGESTED SERVICE.; TO IE DEVELOPED TOR DAY-CARE venu mow.

)

A. Scree:sins and Health _Evaluations

1. history (American Acaiemy. Form filled out in detql.1)' 1

a. (probably the mil imeortant part of evaluation)

b.. person (other,than physician) taking history must be properlytrained in this activity

c. method.of acquiring old medical records !met bi4developed

d. review of all histories by physician or nurse

1) for picking out possible diagnosis and making referril forexamination by physician or dentist

2) for missing data

e, two copies: a

1) One in school's office

2) one with child that is up.to-dite

4

2. Release forms from patents attached to medicol record and kept withchild for permission to:..

toa.' transport child/medical facility of teacher's choice and to 'permit

physician of'her choice to treat the child in case of emergencywhere parent cannot be reached.

b. give immunization, medication, etc., by teacher, PIN, etc., inschool. Medication may be given only on prescription by physicianand signed release of parents.

c. obtain release for.child's old medical records to add to child'srecord.

d. other release forms as developed with legal advisor to the school.

3. phygleal eveluntion

a. Visual examination

1) infanta.:

0

a) teacher observe ion,' valuable but need' traingil

59

t

G.

266

*tracking *pot of light at 20" or observed problems by ttachesor nurse 1)

c) consultation with ophthalmologiati wherk.werranld

2) older children:

use Snellen charts, cover test has used it school program)

U. USaring - needs special training and equipment and standards

/'--1), consultation with otologiet or audiologist who:Ill:taring loss

indicated through teacher or parenttobstrvitions

2) little value under "1 year except teacher observation

3) older thildren (over 3) regular audiometric tests

C. Phonotardioilcan for heart murmurs

d. Height and Weight. Itsad and chest mossurements. ,Record on Iowa

chart or similar form

st. I:entai:valuation by dentist And/or dernral. hygienist. Referral of

children needing carattoldentist.

.f. Tuberculin testing. iy "Tyne" method yearly or every' six monthswhere history of tie familris obtained. Arrangements for readingtest'at 2448 hours, repeat twits where positive or questionableand follow-up x-rays must it made.

Urine screening with test strip for albumin, ocfp blood, rt!,sugar ecotone and phenylketonuria.

h. istimation of hemoglobin level by hematocrit or hemoglobin deter-mination.

i. Developmental testing by Deng, Divelopmintel, Caldwell, or sortsimilar test.

4. Review of history and physical evaluation by the nurse director and by

contract pediatricians for:

a. recording of,sbnormil findingsIA

b. examination of children with questionable medical problems asderived from the hilitory and physical:evaluations

t. decision on'reberral deposition from sources evailabre

arranging with referral nurse or clerk for carrytng out thereferral and rvording the result for final evalluktion

fr 4>

267

1/4

Trocedureafand Politiei for Episodic 211neas and/or Emeraentlei

t, Training of staff in:

standing orders

handling emergencies,

c. resources available foroutside;emergency care

d. eviluation 04` emetsency and non-eMergency conditieni

e first aid (Red Crois training reggired for all tiachert:in center),

2. Establith outside referral sources for medical tereWithin the real-istit fraMewnikOf the parent'S reaourteit,

3'. Obtaining emergency.yrocedute forms on each infant,or child registeredin the program (i.e;.parent release fOrMs)..

C. /Procedures and Policies, for Staff in Handling Minor Health Problems

These will be readily'aViilable in written form to.eothyof the teachers.

2. The supplies needed to carry out these standing orders Must be bothavailable, in the center and kept current.

3. Illness

Stiff must be trainedto handle iimple,illvean,and evalUate thel;need-for further Medical help.:

`Injuries or accidents

...staff shenld be trained_, by the AmeridanAed Cross to handle Stith-eMergeatieS and the,Red,Cross handbook airail4le in each classroom

COntagious disease . *., ,.. / .

4G. The California,;,State Department of public Health Manual for 'the,

i'l

Control of Communleable Diseases (1966) will act as'guide''

, . ..

b. 'consultation with staff pliNcor MD

When aituation]Calle for outside help::

arrsngeagota for transportation

source of . referral

teacher or aide to accompany child

notifiettion of Razent:if possible

arrangeOePts for follow -up care

f. retuto .of clinical data to school for

D: Nutritional Component"oh

Develop nutritional Standards fok food Service end education of theChildren and theiriparenta in proper nutrition.,

Policies for Assuring Health of'Staff

For infant and preschool programs:

1. /thysical. examination by physician' consisting

a'. TB clearance

'lg.' VD clearance

c. staff examination for parasites and pathological:bacteria (specimenscan be obtained in the center and sent to the State Laboratory)

d. cereful.clearance for skin disease including:

1) impetigo

.2) skincinfesta'tions (i.o. scabies)

3) ringworm

4) monolia and. ott*i.itlitgal

2. EmotiOnal and,mental health should be taken.into consideration. iftheir emotional behavior was :found to be detrimentalto the childrenthey should be released from their

3. Some arrangeme4s should beTWede for a eadicalevaluation of the staffif needed focyepisodic illness orvaccidents, as they relate to the :

children (i.e., their ability to pose to'work).'

4

26-201 0 - 72 - 15

270

ICATIRNALt NUTRITION EDUCATION. PROJECT

INV

George C. Cunningham, M.D., ChiefAudrey T. Cross, M.P.H.

Bureau of Maternal and Mild HealthCalifornia State Department of Publics Health

2151 Berkeley WayBerkeley, California 94704

m

March a.971

264

271

PRUNANOIOUTCCala PICPERVNCE CALIFORNIA

J,965-196

Approximately ten percent of all Visited States birth,* occur in California.

In 1967, 3,521,000,1ive-bil.tbs were registered in the United St:deal and of these,

536,584,cocurredin California. Crude birthrate eXperience in California is

similar to that in the nation as a whole: 17.3 per 1,000 population in

California, compared to 17.8 per 2;o00 population in the United States, 1967.

Though the California crude birth rate decreased.in the 19601a (1961: 23.3 to

1967: 17.3), it.is again on the increase with an estimated rate of 18

predicted for 1970, representing a predicted total of 361,000 live births.Li

listernal mortality experience it California isalso-similar to that of

the general United Stateo. In 1947,11 maternal deaths related to pregnancy

were reported in California, representing 4 maternalMortility.ratio of 28.per

.100;000 live births. The United States also experienced a rate of 28:3

Rates for non-whitea are considerably higher than those for whites in

California. The non -white maternal mortality rate in 1967 was 5l per 100,000

live births compared to a rate.of 26 per 100,000 live births for whites.

Studies 1:1 maternal, mortality committees indicated that at least half

of those deathe are preventable. katudy of Principle cauaea of maternal

mortelity.in California between 1957Sna 19627 showed that. from 151 deaths,

247 were from obstetrical causes excluding abortion and included the following

diagnosis:

15,8% deathly from hemorrhage14.2% deaths from toxemiaa11.3% eetopic pregnancy10.1% other complications during Tregnandy10.1% trauma of delivery11.7% other complications of delivery'5.7% other complications of the purperiuln

- 3

265.

272

One in five (48 of 247 deaths) who died of other obstetrical ousts (e.g. other

than abortion) had no recordof'prenatal care. Of lawmen with at least one

previous pregnancy for whom the investigator could obtain-infarmation, 37.7%

.(1001Cad &history. or'one or more previous complicated pregnancies. OKAY,

two-thirds of the deliveriesWeri live (13014), and of, these live birth',

12.2% or the Infants weighed 2500 glie ar less.

Aoki= shozlooming of a study suCh as the ahove;ia that environmental

factors, which may play the most significant role in the overall quality of

the pregnancy outcast, and whicli'Oontribute to the existing conditions at

death (e.g. toxemia), are not easily measured. for example, environmental

tutors lhought.to result in the higher mortality rates in non-white mothers .

include lack of an adequately trained attendant at delivery, lack of lantepartUM

dare, dietary deficiencies, poor hygiene, and ignorance about health matters .6

To this list could also be added poor housing, low incomes, a history of poor

nutrition and healthi and the psycho-socio-emotional milieu of poverty.t

The longterm effects of pregnancy complications on women who survive

have not been useseed, either nationally or in California. 'Varicose veins,

chronic problems of the genitourinary tract, and'pelvic relaxation are common

complications of pregnancy:8 Short-interval pregnancies are thought to deplete

malnourished mothers of calcium and iron stores and may contribute to the

development of iron deficiency anemia. Anemiu and other conasquences of under-

nutrition,act with infections and chronic illness to increase the risks assa.

oiated with prognancy.9 The ACaaey report also suggests that thwuntal

health of mothers maybe altered by pregnancy and that more attention in this .

area is needed.

Perinatil-mortality experience In-California in 1967 was slightly better

than that of the nation. The infant death rate in California was 19.6 compared

to 22.1 per 1,000 live births foi:the nation10

- 4 -

2461'

273

Infant Mortality Rate, 1967

Infant Neonatal 1-11 months

California 19.6 14.5 5.0

United States 22.1 16.3 5.8

In a study of the principle causes of infant &aths in California,

1965 1967, *maturity (unqualified or iithdrubsidiaryoonditiOns)4

socounted for 13.9% of all infant deaths, and for 18.3%.of all neonatal (birth

to 28 days) deaths. Poor maternal nutrition during pregnancy has been-irpli-

cated as a contributing factor in prematurity, along with toward's of

pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, and prolcogsd prognancy..12

Amajor Oontributing.factor to prematurity and pariAtal mortality is,age

and parity of the mother.- A 1965 study of perinatal mortality in California 13

reported.' rate of 24.1/2,000 Live births for mothirsunder 20 years of age,

and a rate of 57.4/1,000 live births foi mothers 35 yearaYof tge and over.

Mothers under 17 years of age make the predominant oontributiOn to prematurity

rates, with young mothers with high parity having the highest rates.14 13, 16

Perinatal mortality experience in California is also related to sonic-

aconomic status, A study of mortality op:parlance by occupation of the father13

revealed that agricultural workerkhad consistently higher rates than did other

occupational groups vbencompared for both age of the mother and parity,

Agricultural workers, who represent 190,000 of California's population, are

amOngthelowest paid workers in the state.17

Prematurity experience is related also to rags. When compared -by dates

(lass than 37 weeks gestation), NmymemendIndiati in California have promitur-

ity rates of 13.7% and 10.4% respectively, compared to 7.5%for whites. As

with agricultural workers, Negroes and Indians are generally employed in low

- 5

2 6 7

274

payingActs, live in poor lousing, .have poor amnia to medical care, and

represent high risks nutritionally. These are the persons for whomLsound

nutritional counseling during pregnancy is critically important.

Sulearies of initial diet histories done nomadically indigent, prenatal

patients seen in Maternal and Infant Care Projects (MI C) in California,.

report intakes below two-third* of the 1968 Recommended Dietary Allowances

(ADA) for the following nutrients:

PercAntige of Patientivith Less

Than Two-Thirds R.D.A. 3;81968 -1969.

San Francisco.'

Berkeley*

Angelesm

orielliewtein

21%

30%

79%

Calcium

45%

68%

95%

Vitamin A

21%

75%

97%

Vitamin `C

40%'

76%

75%

Iron

26%

High Nolo*12.0 mg %

07%

55 %2

1,650 patients are seen annually in maternal and infant care clinics, repre-

senting less than 0.5% of all California pregnancies, and therefore only a

smell percentage of pregnancies occurring in the medically, economically and

nutritionally high-risk groups.

*San Francisco - April 1, 1968 - March 31, 1969

Los Angeles - July 1, 1964 - June 31, 1969

Berkeley. July 1, 1967 - December 31, 1967

-6-

268

WSW* NM116pww.4.4 *PAW ImItteran

opwl Puma el rawimm

275

am OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION+nog oDUCATION MONK% zei-cmorcomr. SACRAMIPITO

Bureau of mood Services(016) 445.011S4

Ne4ember 19', 1971 .

Nilson 'Riles

Superintendent of Public Instruction

;Bulletin SL 3-72

71)1r. P.

TO Public School Districts and Nonorofit'Privite Schools;C ty Siverintendents of Schools; Diocesan SuPerin-

<F11on nts of Schodls

SUBJECT ; CCMPETITIVE noon mon SALESII. REIMBURSEMENT FOR TYPE A LURCHES

mt III. PRE-SCHOOL AND CHILD CARL ELIGIBILITY AND PUNDINGIV. NEW U. SI DEPARTMENT.OP AGRICULTURE RECIPE CARD PILESV. MISCELLANEOUS

I. (XOPETITIVE SCHOOL POOD SALES

The Stati Board of Education has scheduled a nublic hoarin, regardingits policy relating to competitive school food sales. The hearing willbe held in the,suditorlum of the Junipero Serra Building, 107 SouthBroadway, Los Angeles at 10;00 a.m. on December 9.

II. REIMBURSEMENT PDX TYPE A LUNCHES

New U. 5. Department of Agriculture, regulations provide for Af reim-bursement for all Type A lunch Programs and up to eUt reimbursement forfres and reduced price lunches served to needy pupils. These increasedrates ate retroactive to July 1, 1971. At this time, however, reilt

.

bursement procedures have not been finalized. Therefore Novemberclaims for reimbursement should be submitted in the usual manner. Alldistricts will be notified regarding the.new reimbursement proceduresas soon as possible.

2.69e r

4.

276

III. PRE-SCHOOL AND CHILD CARE ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING

A chiirt Indicating elfilbility and funding of pre-school and childCare programs under the various child nutrition programs is attached

es Exhibit A.

IV. NEW U. S. DErmmesi,or AGRICULTURE RECIPE CARD FILES

V.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture has made available a revision ofrecipe card files entitled, "Quantity Recipes of Type A School'Lunches." Requests for these recipe card files should be made to thefureau of Food Services of the California State Department of Education,mac.

MISCELLANEOUS

A. Schools which serve reduCed-irice lunches to the entire enrollmentare required to send a letter to Parents, and that letter must beaccompanied by a form on which to make application for free lunches.Schools serving'reduced-Orice 'lunches to the entire enrollment arenot exempt from the requirement to provide all parents with soPli -cation forms for free lunches.

Y. The intent of federal regulations regardingthe'servicslif freeand reduced price lunches is to assure that ell children from afamily be provided the sane benefits. As /such, the price oflunches in all schools of a school food authority must provide allthe children in a family the chance to nay the same reduted price.

A school food authority must establish the. same reduced pricelunch price in elementary schools that it doss in secondaryschools under its jurisdiction.

C. Donated food may be ordered on the basis' of A times the regularallocation rate for Type A lunches served to pupils In grades 7through 12 provided the quantity of food served to such pupils isincreased by h the minimum Type A lunch requirement.

J411:psw

Attachment

Sincerely, .

270

James M. Hemphill, ChiefBureau of Food SerVices

PSE

SCH

DO

LAND

CH

= C

AR

E E

LIG

IBIL

ITY

AN

D F

UM

ING

Pres

choo

l Pro

gram

s

Priv

ite N

eed

Star

t (Pr

ier

LS

11-1

-49)

Priv

ate

Hea

d St

art {

Aft

er 1

1-1-

69)

Scho

ol A

genc

y B

ead

Star

tSt

ate

Pres

choo

l, C

AS

1331

) D

istr

ict

Ope

rate

dSt

ate

Pres

choo

l, Pr

ivat

e, N

os P

rotii

S3F.

J. -

Titl

e I

Pres

choo

l.

Qul

a C

are

Froo

ram

s

Chi

ldre

nos

Cen

ters

(Pr

esch

ool A

ga)

Chi

lctr

en-g

entil

es (

Scho

ol A

ge)

Day

Car

e (S

ocia

l Sec

urity

- 'T

itle

XV

)D

ay C

are,

Oth

er F

undi

ng, i

.e. O

ED

, HU

DM

igra

nt C

a M

P C

ente

rs (

Sum

mer

)

Yea

r R

ound

Mig

rant

Edu

c..(

Reg

iona

l Are

as)

Typ

e of

Pro

gram

SA3

Vai

nly,

A

Com

mod

ities

SPC

WA

Sec

No

No

-N

oN

oy

21N

oN

oN

OX

No

jN

oH

oN

ox4

1x

Xx

Xx`

x2 -

xil

1tp

x Y

No

No

*x

x

x 2/

x 3/

X3

No

x-1

'No

No

-x

xN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oX

XX

X

x2x

illX

1N

ox

2y

X Y

Ho

No

x 1

c

vox

xx

x2-1

x/N

oN

oX

1N

ox

X

No

No

/N

oN

o*

XX

YX

.

XN

oN

oN

oN

oN

oX

xX

X

XX

XX

X .,x

yy)

x

.1,./

Spe

cial

?ta

lk (

lien

Pric

ing)

Itid

at @

raim

ent R

ate,

2 c

ents

par

1/2

pin

t2/

Elin

thle

if d

istr

ict p

r.-r

d.:1

es th

e ro

re tu

ner

"mei

for

sch

ool a

ce c

hild

ren

I IP

Cod

e: 0

- B

reak

fast

krc

gram

....

...1:

- Sp

ecia

l Milk

Fre

grae

l,

I:a.

. - N

atio

nal S

choo

l Lun

ch (

".W

e A

) Pr

ogra

m...

111C

- Jp

ecia

l Foo

d Se

rvic

e Pr

ogra

m f

or C

hild

ren

'2.

. - S

peci

al ,.

ssis

tonc

e fo

r fr

ee a

nd r

educ

ed p

rice

lunc

hes

Sec

'E-

Don

ated

Com

mod

ities

- T

ype

A L

unch

esSt

ate

- D

uffy

- tn

000n

e ne

t of

1970

Zee

32

- Su

rplu

s C

omm

oditi

es -

All

mea

ls

278

maniouttatanou

Migrant Infant fey Care1971

Note: Comments;abated)

apply:deo to Preschool Program as Tool service .

is

limited progress has been maderduring the 1971 year pe food and nutrition

service* in the Idgrairt id:Nation programs. Ability to progress continues

tot* aftverely hampered by liolCof qualified 1 to administer the food

sandals program and lack of qualified nutrition uostion input for to:abhors,

soaks, parents and children,

Nutritional adequacy of the meals served varied greatly between crawsWithin a oentertree one day to the next. In an attempt to offer oo tent .

end uniform nutrient intakes to the children in Region II andcosts and ordering and delivery scheduling, ,s cycle =nuns /Maid and

-.)

approved by both the State Department of Public Health and the bureau offood:Services, State Depart:mot tflducation.

- .

Ur:fortune:41y, menus were not adhered to and substitutions wide were not always

equivalent in nutrient content. Adaptations made for infants frequently didnot meet the intents needs for foods appropriate to their developmentalability or nutritional. needs. Cultural foods were infrequently included.

In legion /II bead teachers 'rote weekly menus. As nutrition and food serviceknowledge of teachers is limited', if not*non-existent, menus were ofteninadequate as written and also suffered tree substitUtions as in Region /I.

' -

The qualifications and skills of cooks varied. Several had both trainingand experience in School /usich Programa; most had little or no training orexperience other than cooking for their own families; which contributes littleto quantity cookery knowledge and sanagulent skills. .

0

The stafewere, however, allerining and anxious to learn and is:prove and would -

'have benefited fron.planned and continuous intervice education under the super.vision of a qualified nutritionist or dietitian. Cooks &nits:where expressed aa"need for cook's inserviceeducetion incIudinmenu planning, el:oration andmaintenance of institutional equipment, quantity food preperation techniques,food purchasing, and tins mentgement and productimpscheduling. .-

Staffing patterns at the centers re irregular and not related to the number

7;t:rof meals served, the type of menu, the ;imitations of the facilities. The

approximate ratios of reels served t cook were as follooi: Gridley

33 seals /cook; Dixon 40 meals /cook; and Harney Lane 47.neals/Cool.:. Insufficient ..

staffing can lead to poor quality service while overstaffieg is a waste of labor

cost. These ineonsictortice in staffing reflect lack of administrative ability .

to deternine staffitg needs.

facilities were also inconsistent between centers and, with the exception ofGridley, grossly inale;uate for the number of reale served. Equipment vex

a.

272

279

poorly laged out leading to teak flow ineffici'Mciem; there wad inadequatestorage'space for dry foods (at Harney lane they are stored lathe headto/where' office); refrigeration space was also limited.' None cifthe.-aenterslet dishwasher*. Qtly Gridley had a commercial sire Mixer.

None of the kitchen facilities ware inspected or approred by & sanitarian. .It is my opinion that only Gridley would have passed. such en inspection asthe other centers had minimal facilities and as many of the cooks lacked,knowledge of sanitary procedures in instlioticial settings.

Yt is impossiblelfto determine the mists of the food Service operaticms underCurrent bookkeeping and inventory methods. Records of expenditures are obscure,ineacurate, and Contradictory. There is no accurate lammation on costs.of'operation per child per day by age; costs per Region; costa per adult (staffvs visitors); percentage of ccats u raw food vs percentage as Labor; per-'mintage of raw food costs u protein, vegetables, fruits, etc.; costs ofnon -food items each as paper goods, Janitorial supplies,-gas end electricity.Without this information, it is not possible to make effective management_decisions.

It Islas:NM:that food budgets were being used to purchase items for use in theday oars program such as pencils, pampers, construction paper, etc. Theseare not food costs but were charged to the food budget.

Numerous procedural decisions were made without adequate knowledge ofalternative methods of meeting nutrition orifood service needs and withoutconsideration of the affects on coati. Fed ample, in both Regions II andIII many foods rare purchased trod local grocers at retail prices endear*picked up daily by either the cook or the head teacher. This was a wastefuland inappropriate use of personnel and an expensive method of food purchase,which reflects lack of qualified.personnal in decision-making positiOns.

4,Reimbursements for food service were not consistent between Regions. WhileRegion III received only Vagrant Education funds for food service, Region IIreceived 49#611d/day reimbursement in federal funds through the bureau ofFood Services, State Department of Education (301i National School Lunch Program,Iv Federal Breakfast Program, 20/ Snack Program). This could be construedas a form oT discrimination which offered Region III less financial opportunityto meet the nutritional needs of children in its centers.

Region II complained that federal ccernodity foods did not arrive when neededfor food services. For the most part, this was due to lack of planning basedon.quantity recipe needs, number of persons to be fed, ancedelivery schedule,and was not due to any inefficiencies on the part of Vile state Surplus Office.Iaaddition, Call use was not made of comodities due to lack of standardized.quantity recipas (these were available bUt cooks had not been trained to usethem) and lack of adequate equipment for preparation (especially mixers andoven space).

Various persons presented short (e.g. 1-2 hours) presentations on nutritionfor cooks, parents and teaching staff (raitritionists from this State Departmentof Public Health end the Bureau of Food Services, State Department of Education,and hems economintn Erna Agriculture Extennion). These presentations were ofquestionchlo GP there con no overall plan to r.oet apeifie nutritioncaletticn tnaz in t!...s center, no consloteney tet7ieen rercon providing input,

273

no continuity in content and inappropriate use of persons providing input.

Far example, a home economist (who is ndt trained in quantity fcm.$) tough!'a olass for the cooks in food preparation; a school lunch nutritionist (who

is skilled in this area) was instead asked to do parent aduCation, and a

\er

translator (mitk no background in nutrition) wisrpaid 350 to do a abdrt

mum in nutrition for parents. Critical needs for nutrition and-foode oe.education for teaching staff, cooks, parents and children were not

.net nor did the above tokenism cortributato imprOvement in this area.

, In amettempt to solve mai' of its food semi- operation problems Ession Iffooled a Nutrition Steering Committee. The committee offered an'alvortunityfor cooks and head teachers to meet mmonthly-but could accomplish little elseas oolleotivs decision mining by unqualified persona does not change the .

quality of the decision mado.'The group was allowed to make.decisions oflittle importancrehich could have easily been made by one person (..t. thatteachers be allowed to receive free lunches if siting with the children;that purchese receipt be mailed weekly instead of monthly). Asconkandaticnaby the committee which could have mad. 'Mice changes in operations were neverexecuted (e.g. that a qualified nutritionist be hired to coordinate theirfood services and to institute a cook's training program). The bureau offood 3ervines-ef-the-State-Department of education concurs with thk opinionthat the committee adcomplished little as organised and is nota substitute

for qualified management.

Necummendations

The Interagency Day Cere Committee has endorsed the need to improve thequality of nutrition and food services in the Migrant Day Care Programsand has recommended the employment of a qualified nutritionist to mamathis responsibility will be delegated. It is imperative'that action be takenimmediately to hire a nutritionat who'aill bogin.to plan for the 1972operations (see attached).

Under authorization of t4e Lewis Bill health cars and nutritional staniariswill be set by the State Department of Public Health and it must be theresponsibility of the Regiopal Director to see-that these staniards are

met. o

A specific budget must be designated for food and nutrition services.

fp

Audrey T. Cross, M.P.H.Nutrition ConsultantBureau of Maternal and Child HealthState Department of Public Health12/29/71

274

281

Embiation of Health-Program in Infant-Day-Catre Centers for Migrant Children

The fo.11owing is a dusextry of health care during 1971 %Jailer Season in

Care Centers under Migrant Education Prbgrart in Region U. 'Sesta centers(2 with infant units). -- the dzita was not separated.

588 cbilsren were -regiatered. into the program.

Health acreening wad to have been accomplished by a screening team trained.. the lobo Coturty Hea.).th Department to screen for Physi-cal defects,, vision,

hearing, anemia, abnormal urinary findings, tuberculosis and development. A

;health history Teacher Observation Form was to be developed and a. preservice or.inservica. training program was to be instituted. to train the teachers and aidesiri solleating health data and in looking far. physical defects. DevelOpmental

teating.--were to have been done on ail children (Denver Developmental Test) aftera training session with the Yolo County Health Deportment. r

The whole plan was outlined .1,y the Stet% Health Department, farms and guide-

j.s were'oeered as guides.

central referral office was to'be set up in Woodland to keep track or thech 's records approved and make referrals and to set up screening apSoint-menus, -end make sure the referrals were properly carried out.

A screening team was hired and directed ,,for 2 months. by Richtird Tortosa (a

first year medical student) with the help of 2 other 'students and an ex-dental- corpsman troll the militerY.

249 cbilsren.were dental screetteAy the ex-dentalcorpsman (he could not4 -

touch the childrenco.nly lookedinto their mouths' with ,1%. *act). 21 were referrede. for treatment.

97 children had "physical exams". (I am notsure by when._) en course,,

children undoubtedly- *ere, seen by the center nurses,. by, doctars etc. but this-1.10Eormation not t fed back to the teachers and thus n recorded. 25 childrenwere referred but we don'tIcnow where and for what.

ee

\

153 children (aPproximately 26%) were screened for hearing by tfie screening

team. None were 'referredt- This is 1, sharp contrastto 1970 .experience where

nearly 113 were referred. Even kakin4into account aver-roferral last year, this

would snggest under-referral this year.. 1.

37 childre4steraLeuened for vision. ThIA representS eray 8.3&er a ScouP,. . ,

of ctrmiren at particularly, high risk for *viinal;problems. Oalita was ;referred.:

This would suggeist that another 15'or:lic"needed 'eye 4134ultapio4 b 14 'Wein missed.

34 cbiT;iren (58%) were *screened far anenstaf approcimelly 1/3 of ig':is group,:,.. ...- .i y

were xnferred fOr treatment (a13. from Dixon Infant Centei:)-bat there is no. _ , 6

documented, evidnce of who received treatment and far how long.# ., .. z

3.97133.5%) children had 'urine dipsti.X all.done; a were apparently "normal and

none were referred,. .4probably not too surprising. ,t

73 children were teSted for tuberculosis (tine test). This* represents only .'? e..... :

12% of a Opup at very; high risk for Tn..,

We don't have specific intermstion from Gridley Infant Day Care Center u

it is limpid in, 4.11-r-iiie total center's- data Ecr Dixon, however, records show,

that 6.4 ere enrolled during the 'wiser, 24 had the dental scrkening,

37 had physical exits (with a referrals Sax. 27); 3h had henatccrits as mentioned

above, 15 had-tha.Z71tests and all had teachei observatton forms filled out.

Reg.lcfn III.'.

The sitta Son at -Haney Lane (Infsit Center) revealed, tits.t or the number'., 2'1.k(how manylfealTat'Wha redeived.medical servides from the San Joaquin Medical

. ,... .. ... . .

. ..Society, thehreakdown,was as follows:

.Physical exam , 15 pulesAuditory screening 0Visual screening 0 Polio 40

TB test ' 10 #1 o4

#3. . 8DPPj1 3

1r3 1

Booster 9

General Comments

. Apprcecinatel,y a year ago the Interagency Day Care Ceppitte decided that

health care should be s. Major ecnsideretion in-the day care pre/gram. A general

outlinaoi the essentielparts Cf. a health plan were de' lopedi(see attached)

which Were to include!

1. Health screening of children and-teachers:

2: Referral for needed services frcp screening and fcm mergency care.

3. Standing orders for-nce-lite threatening illnesses centers..

4. Health educationto the teachers and tides in-the ogcap.

5. Evaluation of the.programs.

The State Department of FUhlic Health provided the out e of Minieel heaZEh

items.which should bi,Included, developed faro which ccu used to evaluate

the program, developed standing orders for minor illness; hick were distributedf.

to the Departient of Education as well as the Regional office. {Regions Trend

III). In addifign, a proposal for a pilot project for henith cire of migrant

children in Region II was developed at the request of th Director of egion I/

(see attached). Site visits were pade to all the camps ce a and

there were ;piny phone:consultations with.Regions II and III offices as well as

a teaching. session on nutrition and history taking. l spite of these efforts,

site visits and final reports indicate that not even minimal health standards are!

being met and certainly no where ne,,rithe 1041 suggested iA the Interagency Day.

' Care Stindardsas set up by the Department of Sealth,lEducation, and Welfare.

1: Regulations as to'spaceper child ratios were not-adhereeto..

Facilities Were pa being inspeciedkitchens, plumbing, etc'.) by localhealth departments. '

.3. There was no uniformity in checking into the heiltil of the staff,particularly teadhera and. kitchen workers., .

4.- There was little real:effort to meet nutritional needs in light of ethnicpreference and limitations.

f

2.

e

5. Ragibn /II infants were all screened but no adequate Way bainIxten setup to assure that deficiencies .= medical referral needs were being.followed up, Region II bad no real.health care plan stall but bitsand pieces put. togetber impulsively.

6. At Dixon, at least, there was not until. later on, a clear cut plan.foremergency care..

7. A new test (Thorpe) was being evaluated while minimal. Standards ofbealtheare were not being met.

Recooftendations:

1. Health care standards must be pet by the State Department of PublicHealth. (as now authorized by the Lewis Bill) and it must be theresponsibility of the Regional Director to lee that the standards are met.

2. There should be an overall.State coordinatOr fOr health and for nutritionfor these Pay Care Centers.

'

3. Each Region should have a Public Health Nurse. regional health coordinatorto see that'the regional plan is put into effect. .

4.' A specific budget must be designated to health and nutrition.

Forms for histories; physical exams, teacher observations, emergencycare, etc., should be developed by all regions.

4

2 18

0

PROJECT FOR HEALTH CARE FOR MIGRANT C!ILDREN OF REGION III

I. SWART

Under tha California Plan for the potation of IllerantChildren'(authorixed

by Public Law 89450, Title I, Elementary and Secondary Educatidn Act of 1966)

the Department of EducatiOn, under the. Division of Compensatory Education, de-

Vised.a plan, written in compliance with federal requir'etents, to meet the

educational needs of migrant children. In addition to the school ate Program

with an interagency agreement with the State Department of Socia/-Welfars and

Rumen Resources Development and now With the State Department of Pubic Health,

Day Care is provided in soma 25'centers for preschool children (3 of which pro

vide infant day care).

Among the objeitives of'the plan are "to provide supplementary health

cervices for migrant children to alleviate health problems which interfere with

the learning processes of these children".

lealth as officially defined by the State Eoard of Education (April 9, 1970)

"is a state of physical, mental and moral wall -being and is dependent upon the

interaction of these dimensions".

According to the evaluation report publilhed in 1969 by the DiVision of.

Compensatory Education the California P an was "planned to serve an estimated

43,345 children" 2,555 prtschool, 3,700 kindergarten, 29,000 grades 1 thrOoth

6, 7,500 grades 7 through 12 and 570 ungraded...An 1970 health services were

furnished to only 4,285 migrant children (Shout 10 percent of the total eligible

in California):

Careful screening of 103 children (ages 19 months 15 years) from the

Region II* program revealed 22 cages of /meal", 17 Visualdefects, 17 hearing

defects, 14 case, of otitis media, 4 heart Aomori, 14 cases of body lice, 8

upper respiratory infections and 15 other miscellaneous conditions. Two additionalA

children had emotional.problems. Similarly, review of 1,147 children (0-15 yeare)

0

* See map in appendix

.4

286

*Creamed in Region II in 1970; 20% had low hemoglobin,' nearly 4% hid abnormal

Urines, 10% abnormal hearing, 5% with visual difficulties, Only40% of those

founddeficieni,riceivedm further careend'the definitive nature of the

care is unknown. lefitiVelfrechildren are screened,, those who

are have a high Ummber of probIesat tcome of which is iergely unknown.

Of'751 cOldren screenedfor dental pro lems 100% needed some dental care,'

307 (427.) had serious dental problems needing !radiate attention but only 201

or about 2/3 Were treated.- tee appendix for 1971 Evaluation of Infant Centre.

rood service is provided teachildien in thq day care program. The,

nutritional. adequacy end quality of service -has varied greatly between centersI

and within aeenter from day to day, and has not consistently provided foods

nutritionally appropriate for this age group. Reimbursement* for food service

has not been uniform per child between centers. Nutrition educationtAchildren,.

center staff, kitchen staff, and parents has been. minimal* and provided in a

disjointed mannte: (See appendix for 1971 EvaluatioA Nutrition Component in

Migrant'Day Care)

Nutrition iktferinf is an important part of day care services for young

children. A child grows and develops more raiidlyduring.these years of life

then at any other time, and growth and development is closely related to nutrition.

The target area for this pilot health program for migrant children Will lc,

Migrant Education Region III.(teemap in appendix) This region includes San Joaquin,

Stanielaus, Merced, Crag Costa and Madera counties. Only a few migrant children

are identified in the latter two counties and there are no Wigrent amps_ or day

care centers located within their borders. In the 'former 3 counties (Stanislaw',

Merced and 'San Joaquin all of which are within Regional Medical Program Area III)

there are 11 day care center* caring'for some 800.infants and preschool children

during the sumer, as well as approximately 4000 school age,childrin. Throughout'

the year there are approximately' 4,000 migrant" children identified with the.region.

280

287

Children may bs enrolled, from age 2 weeks through the 12th grade in school. The

children are at a very high risk forhealth problem* as outlined above.

The present health program consists of contracts between the Stanisleus and

San Joaquin Medical Societies with Migrant Education to.provide nurses at the day

care centers withiwthose counties during the sourer months and to provide a

Certain. controlled level Of medical screening and aedi 1 care. In Merced county

a nurse is hired to run the program each summer and t h re aurae* for,theday

care centers. Our evaluation of the program reveals tha the major effort now

goes toward a "one shot" physical screening by physicians with totally inadequate

follow-up of deficiencies in immunization, medical and surgical problems. The

health education program has been scattered and inadequate.

Food service, provided by Migrant Education fundovwes prepared at each

center by untrained staff in inadequate kitchen facilities. Funds available.

from other resources to improve service, train staff, provide nutrition education

were not applied for or coordinated.

It is believed tilt e much more comprehensive health and nutrition service

than that offered by Head Start for over 4100 per. child pet year for health ind

41.75 per child per day for food service can be delivered to these children for

fraction of the cost by fully utilizing axistingtfacilities with innovative

ways of health evaluations and that comprehensive food and nutrition education

services can be offered without greatly, increased monetary allocations.

11,

281

288

04.

II. AGENCIES, INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED

The Bureau of. Maternal and Child Health devised the program for improvement of

health and nutrition,services with the approval of the Interagency Coordinating

'Committee. Migrant Day Care/Preschool and Group 'Infant Cate Program. The Committee

represents coordinated effort between the State Department of Education, State

Department of Public Nsalth, State Department of Social Welfare and Inman Resouices

Development, all of whom are concerned with migrant children.

In addition, the following hive beam involved in accessing need' and recommending

solutions; the Aurtau of School Food Services, State Department of Education;

Doctor Leo Lopez, Chief and Mr. William Reynolds, Consultanti:Sureau of CommUnity

Services and Migrant Education, Mrs. Edwina Hither, Coniultani, lureAu of Preschool

Education, State Department of Education, Mrs. Peggy Russo, Wealth Educator, Farm:

Worker* Wealth Service, Stet! Department of Public Health, and Hiss ?Mani=

Associate Profeasor,of Community Medicine, University of Californiajiedical School,

'La Jolla.

Many local-groups have also assisted in formulating the program. Ht. Pablo Clot,

Director, Region II Migrant Education, Mr. Floyd Schelby, Superintendent, Merced

County Schools, and,Mrs. Pat Jeffords, Project Director, Stanislaus County Rural

Health Project nislaus County Medical Society.,

282

289

III. 014CTIVIS

The basic elbjecti6 of this project is. to upgrade, at least to e minimal

acceptable eteoU, the health care of the migrant children. The addition

of infant -day cars itilities allows yousger.and'younger children toe medically.:

evalueted seed treated. Tbm.progeam stresses remediation and prevention oft

health problem rather. the* screening and will begin. to develop the health

component into acooprehensive health service.

.These objectives are consistent with RegiOnel Medical Program Meional Coals

1, 2, 10 and 11 (Developmental Component Objectives 1, 2, 2A, 2C) which specify

development of preventive health services through focus on increased utilisation.

of the health manpower pool directed at target groups of very young children of

migrant farm workers.

The objectivesiff the project area

A. To identify and compile a comprehensive list and do costsbenefit analysis of

the health care facilities in Region III which are now being utilized, Amsources of health cars available to sigmas but not lumbeing used and to

find mew funding 'wrote for expanding services.

3. To develop a plan fur coordinating idomtiiied resourtwin order to develop a

rational system fgt. the delivery Of cemprehenoive health Services to the target

group, including development of new weans of continuous health eveluatioa for

the idehtificatioa of health defects and a carefully outlimed plan for oiid

eforralemd follow«up.

C To evaluate these health services in View of the, standard

`developed by the Irate Department of Public Mealth f

the new model beiniqdiveloped.by the office of Chil Development by a talk

force chaired by be. Ann Paters)..

To coordinatelpaspokend education resume.s cure ly available for provision

of food services and nutrition education and identify ditional resource, for

expanding nutritional care. e.

283

1. To education teachers, aides, parents, etc.,'of *grant children IA health

and Nutrition in order to make them more knoxiedgeebtp and more ewer* of the

:heaah and nutritional probleia of the children and resources available for

solving these problems.

F. To evaluate uithin the period of the grant proposal the ffectiveness of this

approach holthm delivery of comprehensive, coordinated health. services for

migrant children and to gas for its expansion on t'state vide basis for

migrant day care centers.

284

291

I!. IMPLZMUTATION -

A. The administration of Ote health and nutrition program of legion It/ by

turned over to the State Department of Public Health (Sureau of Maternal

and Child Italth) along with the health and food services budge

S. Acentral office for health will beAstablished in Merced with

rational health services coordinator, (a public health nurse ribose

qualificatio4 and responsibilities are outlined ix the appendix) and

a rational outritiosiet (whose qualifications and responsibilities are

outlined in the appendix).;

C. -Office space, travel expenses, clerical he fOr the nurse and nutritionist

has been allocated (see interagency agreement) from Migrant Xducation fund!.

D. The Hialth Service,* Coordinator under the direction of the State'Depertment

of Publicliealth medical atilt shall have the responsibility tot

1. Make a aurvey,of health care facilities and funding resources ivallable

tomigrant children of Region III (reasonably extensive within the time

limits of the grant period).

2. develop regional plan to use these health resources in a comprehensive

health system including,

develoPosnt ofe record keeping system to prevent duplication of

services, to assure satisfactory completion of referrals and feed

back of information referral source.

b. To develop and coordinate neurmeans of health evaluation for the

identification and referral, of health problems.

c. To develop a system for insuring thst the child with an identified

health problem reaches the source of remedietion.

d. To devidop a health training program for teachers, sides, end

parents in order that thity may become health idvocates for the

Migrant children.

285

.

292

-8.

S. The Nutritionist, under the direction of the Bureau of Maternal and Child

lealth, SDPII, shall have the responsibility to:

1. maks a survey of food services facilities sad purchasing alternatives

available in Region IIx end funding resources available from local,

state Asa federal sources for nutrition services ndeducation.

2. Develop a resit/oat plan to use these facilities and feeding resources

is a comprehensive nutrition program including,

development of a record beeping system to /niter expenditures,

nutrient intakes of children and use of funds

b. development and coordinatioetiih the health evaluation, nutrition-

al status evaluatioff for the identification and referral of nutrition

problems .

c. development of a nutrition training program for teachers, aides,

children and parents to increase their awareness of eke !impact of

nutrition on growth, development. and learning, and means of trpreviag

nutritional status.

f. The centralized planning, payment and record keeping efforts of the project

will generate the information necessary for evaluation of the program.

Standard history, referral, payvint,,feedbach, daily obsetystioa forme

will be developed by the health services coordinator and nutritionist.o

286

293

V. VALUATION .

The evaluation of the pregiaM will c6msist ofe----

AA A careful statistical review off the data generated from the "Summary of Wealth

treleleme" fora, which should tell, was

I. The number of children receiving health evaluation,.

2.' The number with miseingparts of the various icreening.companemts.5

3.. The defiileaciis in pest history data retrieval.a

. .A. The deficiencies of preventative &sauces (imMumisetions).

5. Wealth and nutrition problems discovered in apreining.

.6. Wealtbrprobleee referred and where referred.

7. Results of re excel (Special, effort will be nada to see diet referrals

are carried abut and that the ultimate result* recorded.)..

S. Cost of referral (and payment 'mural.).

This kind of data has not basw.evailsbla previously and should be invaluable

in developing ware comprehensive health services to other raglans with migrant ,

a.:

11.' A written document describing the *purees of health care facilfties, manpower

and funds for health and nutrition in Region /It. (with resbanable expectations

children.

in the time limit of the griint)

C. A summary of the nutritional- statusoilthe migrant children inRegion III as

daterminedbly dietary histories and some biochemical dita from the health

svalustion. '.M

D. Cost analysis of the food services'oparation including costs of equipment,

Aihysicsl.plant, labor1 food, nanfood'sUpplfes,:apiratioii ini.maintenence,

infehtory, procurement:transport, and storage.'0

o.

:

28714,201 0 - SO

294

VI. JUNDING ?WM Ann DITCLOPIOThriAl. COMINEXT,thrOla TrInintATICIr

Th. Zureauof Coomunity Service* and Migrant:ltducation, State Department of

iducation, has agreed te assume reopoisibility for support of the Weilth Services

Coordinator and Mutritioniit uhen lagional Medical 'mgr." funds are terminated.

.tduestion, with continued asilataice from the,Iluresu ef Maternal aid Child

&math, OfM..plass te squid the mode/ system for delivery of health care and

nutrition services,to other Migrant Education legions within the state after its

ievalIpmemt by the legional Medical Program grinto

O

4

288C.)

gel6

295.

CIHIPONENT.'

.. Executive board of leelonal Mierant_Eduohrlon Comnonen% t testa. TIT

r.G,4,..4.1: . Project for Health Carerfor Migrint Children of' Reston III

2 a.: :,;:o2 Pah 1472 tq WII 1471 (Inclusive).S \,

Drac-itcv,d

1::4:7Al2T:OXi(itamia) MOUNT REQUESTED (Omitints)

Tiro o orTitlo of Effort

' position' Salarylcontributioos by burea4,of Maternal d Child.114a1th, S.D.Land jgatipity,i7 Mitrapt iducation!Health Services Coord AronNari;_Servicee Coord. I 100%

15.77612,536

FrinskBenet-Ler

.14Total

stliro"1,48E

C

OtherSupport

(not inclu-'in 4....-outr.cquest,O.i

720 g51.00

I

17.084*14,024--

TOTAL PERSONHEI.

Ziquipmant ;space.f.y),II

, - s (atr.r.e.% individual budget sheeti for eachsub-contract)

J

"!,!". o

rAr.O.V.: Costa

7.37.O.I. Costs0.

31,113. "

*.51.:2;art far this project.. Show dollar equivalent of services "in kind"...241",r.plakin f...zdtvidual non-personnel items ii e)tcass of 25Z of total direct. costs:

. 4

T.= tams: pra.act is to be sub-contracted by applicant, ripply name, address and nano ofr.aspc.r.st'sla fiscal officar.for the aub-cdntractor: ;

tiI

,

Ts= - Rev* 5/6/71

e

I .

.4

4

9

296

31IDOST tP

s 11.

The following.contributions of funds or personnel.will be made:

frOm4Sureasiof Maternal and Chid Health, SDPH

*arren,E. Hawes,'M.D. 15% time '0,325.00

Audrey T. CrOaa, RD, MPH LOX tine , 10.12.00

4

,/ . 7

from Region III, MfgranA EducatiOn Office

Secretary --- , 100% time e.-'.-.

. . $6,500.00

Office space and office equipment and supplies '2,254.00

Travel Allowance ' :5,760.00

labia Clet, DireCtor, mu. III 5% time 1000,00

4

1.

0

20,951.00

Is

290

-

REGIONAL. ORGANIZATION HAPCALIFORNIA PLAN FOR THE EDUCATIONOF MIGRANT CHILDREN.

-

42,

APPENDIX

8

-:4

abix

.. .. - . .E

,,,t . ,

, -

-DITATL 0, SERVICES TO SE DEVELOPED/

,`yle

pl. Screenln end Health Evaluations '.

.*1

5 I . -

1. Elstery (American Academy Tors in detail, use one fora only 110A;

lay language, Spanish and English). .4

.4;

a. oldut important part of evaluitionl,

person taking historyOrnot an M4D6ust he pipierly.trained

and approved.by director Of project.

c. method of acquiring old records 4.

q. ;review of all abnormal histories by physician-or nurse

1) for picking out possible diagnosis and skins referral

2) for missing data

S . 'two copies:

1) ,one in central office. Region /1,

2) one, with child that is up -to -date

'6'2. 'Esleede7forms from parents attached to medical retord and kept

A' with'.child for:

a.. transport pi child to med;cal facility oftescharls choice

and to isrmit physician ME her choice to treat the Child

b. giving of immunization.'medicaplon:etc., by tea;ner,

etc.. in centers. Kedication only on prescription by M.D.

and signed ;elate* of pitents

a

;

release of medies1 records

chock with Attorney General's office on leial limits oT such,

forms

3. Physical evaluation

VisualexaminaCion

1) infants:

al teacher ObservatiOn, valuablebut needs training,1... ,

v,

rd iv299

b) tracking spot of light at 20."

o) consultation with ophthalmologists

2) ola;:c children: . .

usit- Suellen charts, cover test like school program, *ism.

test cc- other tests

b. Hearing - micas specialreining and equipment aincl,stiuldards )

,I) consultation with °bolo/0.st

2) Little value under I. year except teacher observation. . 0. p. PhonoCardickican ',.sereen.ing program to,bedevelopled. with

Jean H4114. 41 iociatiimk,_,...../

d. Height and weight. -Head and chant metubu:enients. Record. on

Iota chart . ; - .

e. Dental evaluation. '2hiVhis. been done, by contract with Uctr '. i

Dents41 school using a mobile unit as a teaching program. The

children are prescreened. 2 Weeks 'before tile,dental unit arrives,

then 'treated. .ills can be expanded by adding a year-rota. .ilea dental unit using locs4ndentist and dental holenists.

140 ;f. Tuberculin Testing. By 4tine.metliod yearly or *Very six

mcnthstwbere history at the fondly is obtkineb Arrangements

for' reeking test at 210..48 hours, repeat tests where positive

) or questionablt and follow-upx-rays must be -aide.

g. Urine screening with test strip far elbUsdn, occult blood, Ph,

sugar acetone and phenylketckuria.

h. Estimation of hemoglobin level by Iiimitocrit ee. 'hemoglobin

determination.

i. Developmental testing by Denver Develcrp mint Test or Helene

Thorpe Develof3mental Inventory.

"4

293

4

4., ktYiew ce history and physical evaluation by the nurse director

and by contract pediatricians far:

h.. recording of lebnormal findings, ,,:

b Osainatica of childreewith questionable medical problems .

asderived'from the history and physical evaluations.

c. 'clecisiI'm on rearrartepceition from sources available'

d. arrangincwith.central referral; clerk for carrying out the

referral (making appointments, arranch;g transportation) and

recording. the result for fine/ evaluation

e. making decisions on authorizing major medicalen*surgical

( procedures not available locally '.

.Procedures and Policies for episodic Illness and/or Itmereencies

,%Traiuingof staff .ins

a

. a. use of standing orders .

..

b. responsibilities fir handling emergencies

c. resources available for outside emergency care. .

d. evaluation of emergency and non-emergency conditions

fe.

1et.: first aid (Red Cross first Aid Training reqdired far ail

teachers in cents;

)"1

,

2.,,.1149.ish outsidevmedic refirra sources, cu a contractual balk

for emergency care end evaluation of'sudden life threatening illness.

1

3. cbtaiding emergency procedure forms.on each Infant

.

registered in(the,

4,

ej program (i.e., parent release forms).-

. ,

C. Procedures and Policies for !Staff in H:ndli n Health Problems

. 1. These will be readily available is written fC4atcreaCh of the teachers.

1

,-2: The supplies needed to carry out these Standing orders must tm both

available in the center and kept.

2 9.1

a.

SP

C

.

301

:3.

Staftmust4 be trained t handle simplaillness and .evaluate the

;mid for incieher medicll help.

itb . Injuries or accidents

! Staff will be trained. in lint Aid by the American lted.Cross oc

similar course to handle such emergencies and the First Aid Hasidbodo

hill7th available in each center.

!°,. Abe/moat for the. Control of Communicable Disease in Caliieehik, I.

State Department of Pnblicihialth publication for hen4ling costafiaas

dimmest - tote us0i.pn consultation with t4 or MD.

6. When situation wall' for outsidrbelp:

a, arra:we:sent. far transportation

b. source ocraferral

c. aideto:accOmpany child

d. netifiCation of parent

e.

,return

follow -up care

1% return of clinical data to center foe records

lf.21tjCmodnatiote

1. Develops standard, tor:

a. nutritional qualityiof food served- y

b. nutrition component of education program

y..

2. Develops policies and procedures for:

a. purchase;'diltyery, preparation, and service ot food, and safety

and sanitation of service

U. staffing ;Otani, personnel. qualifications, salaries

c. budgets and cost analysis

. 3. Plans and implements nutrition education programs for:

a

<D,

29

t

el.. cooking stay

b. .teaching staff end children 4.

O. nareAts

Polipies for Assuring Health°of Staff

'Cr infant-andpreschoolprogrems:

' 1. ItysiCil ekaminationbyphyspian !a:fisting of:

s. n 'clearance (captive TIC tut crPdheet x-eier)

b. Physical evaluation

0.. Staff examination of stools to parasites and pathelogleal

bacteria-(specimens can be obtained in the center-and sent to

the State laboratory)

a. carefeclearancefcrskin diseeie including:

1) impetigo0

2)' skin infistations (i.e., scabies)

3) ringworm

monilla and other infections

2. Motional and mental hes of staff should bi taken intovonsidera.

tion (1t,tmotional behavior is found to be, of a type detrimental to

the children, such persons should not be ',llama to 4 1cwith the

children.)

3. Arrengelaepts should be made fcr a medical evaluation of the staff

an needed for episodic illness or accidents, sincetthey relate to

the children (i.e.,'their ability to case to work).

2

20Q

PINSOIODM

I. Public Heath vireo Health Services DOordinatcr for Region 111 Mgrs.*

Health Proves

A. Qualifications

lb Poblih Health Nuise (Masters degree in Atli°. Health Naming)

using same State Department of Public Health Civil. Servioe

Aiclassification as Public Health II.

2. Itoptriehce in adeinlitrstion mad in teething and supervision

of other'nursing personnel.

3 Ability to ap.pak Spanish and kno0Otb, the Mexican American

and Migrant culture.

I. Interested in further education (possibly training in the

extended nursing role) and public health administratica.

Responsibilities

2mo norms will work Oder the direct:supervisica of the medical

'staff of the State Department of Public Health to provide:

1. Inservice training to all statfinfeenters and teachers in

public schools with migrant children.

" 4. history taking

1). teacher, observations of.bealth problem.

a. screening for phyficakdWfiets

d. recognition of medical em genies

a. use of standing orders1 contagious dimse and emergency

Paneals.

2. Negotitts contracts with local M.D. , local health department;

and other health care service; for:

a. emergency medical care to the migrant children

b. rare for referred case. (from health screening or for Ulnas')

c. arranging for referril of special health problems where local

a

i29"

nb

441

facilities are not available and develop a mechanism by which

referrals can be carried out lemediatiply and their result*

documented for evaluation as quickly as they are available.

d. development and approval of standing orders for teachers to

follow for minor illness in the.darcara center.

3. Act as heaIth.coasultantito staff.

4. Develop a health screening 'program for the infants and children in

Rogibn III.

a. Make arrangemints ;with local school duress to 'screen migrant

school age rungstersIihroughout the 'school year and get

information back to Region center.

b. Also tp encourage the school muse to bring her program up to

the State Department of Public Health screening standards.

c. Development of a summer screening plan and schedule children

for health screening. (Only those youngsters who were not

screened during the regular school year. or recent past seasons.)

5. Responsibilities t4 General Program

a. Administer general program under supervision of medical staff

of the State Department cf.Public Health.

b. Hire personnel

1) full-timeclerg-typist

21 fonstatants for teaching end prdgram evaluation

3) physician to review charts etc..1 ,

4) part-time summer help for screening, children

4 a. Establish with CommulAyAide. and Instructional Aides and

theirupervisors for their role in the health program.

d. 'Congaing data for evaluation of program.

e. Coordination with the other Migrant Education and Migrant Health

Programs.

f. Contract withloolluedicul facilities for each category of cars

under supervision of the State Department of Public Health.

298

.9

I

.4

5

1,

*305

,II. Nutrition Services Coordinator for legion III Migrant Kutricion Program

A. Qualifications

1. Public Health Wwtririonisc (Master of Public lielth Nutrition. .

meeting the Sta.t Dept. 14blit Health Civil ServiCe classification

Public Health Dutrition Con;Ultast II) e .

2. Ixperience in food service management, food service personnel'

supervision end training

3. Experience in community nutrition and nucrition.education

4. Ability to speak Spanish and know both the Mexican American and

Migrant cutlury.

K. assoonsibilitiVe

1. Serves nutritionally adequate and palatable food under the stricteststandards of sanitation and within the budget allotted.

' 2. Develop,. policies and procedures relative to rood and nutrNon ser-vices 1*.the.ornters and to purchase of food,"equipments'ind services,personnel and salary ranges, catering and other activities of concernto the centers.

3. Plans Oenus to ;net the nutritional standards set for each age groupin the center; standardizes recipes for use on the msnu and to allow'cost control; and supervises production of menus at the centers.

4. Establishe standards to be maintained in food production, foodservice, sj4itation and sarety, and insures that lodal sanitaryand rest r nt codes are adhered to.

5. Plans floor nd equipment; needs, layout, and utilization ofiquippent at each router.

6. Estimates ers of persons to be served, titan determines quantitiesof food needs to purchase and prepare, ordering and delivery schedules,and bidding procedures.

.

7. Prepares a budget which,itemizes all costst equipment, physical plant,labor, food, non-fccd.supplies, operation temaintance, inventory, prowcuremont and transport, and storage, 0

5. Prepares an annual budget reporting costs of operation and statingneeds for the following year - this should include costs.per meal;cost'per child age 24 yrs; cost per child age 0-2 yri; cost peradult.

9. Estatpshes staffing patterns and plats for cMpges.basod on pre-dicted trends and ehvges in services.

2 99

10:Identifies activities and tasks required to produce food, divides

them into positions; selectrprrsonnel to meet the table of organi-

sation - without duplipation of responsibility or overstaffing.

11.Establiihes job descriptions (assigned responsibilities &authority) . '

and work.schedules or each staff position and routinely evaluates

each position./

12. Trains,.supervises, directs, motivates, and disciplAnes all staff,

establishing effective communicatiod with them....

13. Periodicallx, evaluates self, 'tat!, and the Progrets of center1.,

kitchen and nntrition services in a constant attempt to improve. . le

14. Times specifiedistary adjustments in the meal plans for ohild- -"ran with special dietary needs.

. . .

1$. Collects pwriodic deta on the dietary intake. of children in thecenters and summarise. this information with data from the health ievaluations to" determine the nutritional status of the childrenand'to note progress resulting from nutritional services at the

)

center.. .

16. Supervises nutritional ',piste of care of infants aqeiesehoolers.

17. Provides conti ous in-merviCa education to infant and preschoollickcenter stet, i nding'assisting teaching staff with planning and

implementetion of hutritioneducation experiences for the children.II

18. Provides nutrition education opportunities for families residingin the camps with Imphasiston normal nutrition, food *condoles,

q and storage, and preparatioXdIlliculties encountered in migrantliving. ..

19. Coordinate; nutritional activities with overall, educatiOnal goalsand activities planned by Regional and State Educational staffs.

20. Reports routine), in writineand in conferenew to the Interagency CCouncil on present situations in the centers, pertineot,obserations,future plans, and cost efficiency of operation. ,

. .

Q