Also, on the other hand, it is an advantage, because being small you do not have near the problems, say, of a State like Kentucky with 100 times more people involved, we have probably 50,000 people in the Government food programs and they have got 500,000. And as I say, the problems don't always show up as linear, sometimes they are almost inverse to the square. So by trying to force something through a tube you create distribution losses in the tube itself that reduces the end product. And I think what I am saying is, that increasing the numbers of persons, having an available operating program, informing persons and referring them to the program is a job in itself. Because we don't look at the program as a benefit program, say, as you do public assistance, we look at it as a nutrition program and work at it on that angle. Because again, being small, we have been able to look at what has happened and have a personal contact with these people. And the program is wonderful. Even in one of our most difficult counties, which is Thurston County, which has two Indian reservations, we went from commodities to food stamps. And it was quite a traumatic experience. But now the people on the reservations want to know why they didn't do it sooner.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much. That was very interesting. I have enjoyed talking to it. I have unduly burdened the record there, but I appreciate it very much.

Mr. MCGREW. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator ALLEN. Mr. E. C. Bryant, please.

Mr. Bryant, we appreciate you coming up and appearing before the subcommittee and giving us the benefit of your views. And we are delighted to have a representative of our neighboring State of Georgia.

STATEMENT OF E. C. BRYANT, STATE FOOD OFFICER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ATLANTA, GA.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The statement that I will present here does represent the position of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Bryant, we do have a 10-minute limit. It will probably take longer than that for you to read the statement in full.

Mr. BRYANT. All right, I will probably omit some of this.

We welcome the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the following proposals now under consideration pertaining to the administration of the food stamp program:

1. Our concern is for the ever increasing administrative cost confronting our State and county governments in administering the Georgia food stamp program.

2. We should also like to call to your attention the effects that the implementation of a statewide food stamp program will have on other nutritional programs in Georgia.

We are pleased to report that in accordance with the congressional mandate, Georgia has prepared and submitted a plan for the

implementation of a statewide food stamp program by June 30, 1974. We should like to point out, however, that prior to this mandate, 134 of Georgia's 159 counties had voluntarily requested and were operating a food stamp program. We now have 158 counties that have been approved. One county has not yet agreed to the

program.

The most significant problem encountered in changing project areas from the food distribution program to the food stamp program has been the requirement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that either the State or the county government assume all administrative cost relating to the issuance of the food coupons. In Georgia, State funds are available only to meet matching requirements for food stamp eligibility determination and for payment of salaries and expenses on a State staff consisting of five employees. As a result of limited State funds, we have no alternative but to require our county governments to assume all cost related to the handling and disbursement of the food coupons. It has been most difficult, if indeed not impossible, to explain to boards of county commissioners why the Federal Government has made available, through the State, grants to counties from the operating expense fund to defray a high percentage of the cost of administering the food distribution program, but will provide no financial assistance relating to the cost of the issuance of food coupons. In Georgia, we have been anxious to phase out the commodity program to needy families. However, we understand the county commissioners' point of view and recognize that they have a valid reason in being reluctant to change the system for providing food to low-income households.

Since Federal matching funds for all administrative costs have not been provided, the task of administering the program has not been provided, the task of administering the program has been made tremendously more difficult for the State. When a State must depend on a lower echelon of government to bear the total cost of a segment of a program, it becomes difficult to establish and to enforce uniform standards pertaining to service to recipients, establish qualifications for personnel, maintain and provide security for the handling and storage of food coupons, and to provide adequate insurance to cover any loss of coupons or cash collected from the sale of food coupons.

We would also like to discuss our reasons for recommending that the committee support legislation to provide Federal assistance for all cost factors related to the food stamp program which are not presently shared by the Federal Government on the same ratio now provided for eligibility determination, outreach, and quality control, that is, Federal 62.5 percent, State 37.5 percent.

The States are administering a Federal program that is rigidly controlled by legislation and through regulations and instructions issued by the promulgating Federal agency. In estimating our caseworker requirement at the local level for fiscal year 1975, we anticipate that the food stamp program will represent up to 45 percent of the casework load. The food stamp program is a complicated and difficult program to administer.

Policies and procedures for implementing the program are in a state of continuing change. Three primary causes for these continuing changes are:

1. New legislation intended to improve the present program and expand the benefits to additional low-income households.

2. New policy and procedural regulations issued by the USDA. 3. Changes in policy which are required as a result of court orders.

In Georgia, the State is now paying 57 percent of the cost of the food stamp program which is exclusive of funds provided by county governments. In considering all cost factors, we fully concur in the findings of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Senator McGovern, which indicate that the U.S. Department of Agriculture reimburses the States for no more than 28 percent of the total administrative cost of the program and our figures bear this out. We should like to point out that in instances where the USDA does provide matching funds, with the exception of quality control and outreach, Federal assistance is extended only through the first-line casework supervisor. In order to arrive at an accurate cost of the food stamp program, the cost should be prorated throughout all units of the State and county agencies in a direct relationship to the amount of time required to administer the program. For example, State and county administrative, supervisory, and clerical staff must devote time to the program. In addition, personnel, accounting, computer services, office space, utilities, supplies and equipment are required. At present, the State and counties are responsible for food coupon issuance and must assume total liability for any loss of food coupons or cash collected from the sale of the food coupons.

We do not concur in the USDA's contention that the State or local governments should bear the total issuance cost for the food coupons as a result of the State sales tax generated through the use of food stamps. In Georgia, the State sales tax law was originally enacted to defray expenses associated with educational programs. Although the money does go into the general revenue fund, it is difficult to break with tradition, particularly when the continuing needs of these programs for improvement and expansion absorb any additional revenue that may be received as a result of economic growth. Furthermore since most other money payment programs also generate a sales tax, it does not seem logical that the food stamp program is singled out as an exception and to use the sales tax as an excuse for limiting matching funds to the States.

In Georgia, we recognize that an effective quality control system can be a valuable tool in revealing program weaknesses, particularly as they relate to the process of eligibility determination. We, therefore, appreciate the Federal matching funds made available to support this activity. However, we believe it is equally important for the Federal Government to assist in providing State administrative, and policy supervisory staff, for the purpose of avoiding a high error rate, and to be available to initiate corrective action when errors or weaknesses are reflected as a result of Federal Administrative Project Reviews, Office of the Inspector General Audits, or Quality Control Reviews.

In considering the above factors and conditions, we believe we are justified in requesting the committee to urgently support legislation to provide Federal matching funds to States to support all program and administrative cost relating to the food stamp_program. We believe this to be an appropriate and valid expenditure of Federal funds and are confident that if legislation is enacted to support this request, we can indeed administer a more efficient and effective program and that it will enable the State and county governments to significantly improve services to our low-income citizens.

Furthermore, we believe if the proposed legislation is enacted. it will enhance the possibility of attaining additional State matching funds which would make it possible for the State to relieve the counties of food coupon issuance cost and all other related expenditures.

The State would then be in a position to establish needed criteria and standards which would result in uniform performance of all aspects of the program. The State would also be in a position to negotiate a statewide umbrella insurance policy that would provide more adequate comprehensive coverage at a much lower cost. In order to save time I would like to comment on two other situations which we are experiencing in Georgia.

One, Mr. Chairman, as we have proceeded to phase out the food distribution program, it has resulted in a problem in trying to service many of our small institutions, our day care centers, our Headstart programs and other public and nonprofit agencies that have been receiving commodities through these various counties distribution centers. Now that we are phasing out the food distribution program these facilities have disappeared and the State has been unable to devise an alternate system to provide a service to these people.

Now, we are talking about in Georgia 44,000 or 45,000 children, orphans, and others serviced in this type of small institution. We are talking about another 77,500 participants of summer camps representing 720,000 camp days. We have not been able to find or develop an alternate system, because we are doing away with the facility through which distribution has been provided through the Department of Human Resources on a no-cost basis to these people. And we are very concerned about them, because they have not been able to compensate for this loss in their budgets. And we would hope that the committee would find a way where these groups could receive food stamps or be cashed out, as I don't think we are going to be able to devise another system that would be economically advisable, it would probably cost more to set up a system than the value of the food involved. But yet they are very proper groups, and they are very needy groups.

The other comment I would like to make is, we are concerned in respect to the absence of a supplemental feeding program for people who need special diets, pregnant women, and any case where there would be a prescription for this type of supplemental feeding. We had hoped that the WIC program for women, infants, and children could be developed to a point where it could be imple

mented on a statewide basis. However, if there is going to be a time lag here, again we would like to urge the committee to consider building a supplemental feeding program back into the food stamp program-I think it was a year ago the Senate committee did propose building in a supplemental program. We would like to see these benefits built back into the legislation. Because this program, even though it was limited in Georgia, was a very, very useful program.

Senator ALLEN. Mr. Bryant, don't they have a WIC program down there?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes, we do have. It just started this year.

Senator ALLEN. Is that inadequate, or are there possibilities there, or what?

Mr. BRYANT. I think, Mr. Chairman, that if it could be implemented more rapidly-I think the basis of the program is good, yes, I do. It just isn't reaching enough people.

Senator ALLEN. That is a step in the direction that you are suggesting, is that right?

Mr. BRYANT. We would like to see it speeded up.

Senator ALLEN. But it is just inadequate?

Mr. BRYANT. It just isn't moving fast enough to reach enough people. And of course now that we are bringing in the other 25 counties in Georgia, which represents metro Atlanta, and we are talking about 30,000 or 40,000 families in this metro area. And they will be hurting very much, because they had a supplemental feeding program and a food distribution program.

Senator ALLEN. You handle the food stamp program?
Mr. BRYANT. Yes sir.

Senator ALLEN. And other nutritional programs there?
Mr. BRYANT. Other than that, yes sir.

Senator ALLEN. And the thrust of your testimony, then, is toward those programs rather than that aspect of the bill dealing with the school lunch?

Mr. BRYANT. That is correct.

Senator ALLEN. Do you have any idea how many people in Georgia received food stamps and what the bonus amount is?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes sir. Based on last month's participation, the amount of total food stamps dispensed was about $120 million, if you projected that on a year's basis. When you bring in the other 25 counties, we are talking about something considerably more than that. At present, we are disbursing $65 to $70 million or more on bonus and another $40 million cash. It averages 60 percent bonus and about 40 percent cash for our program in Georgia. In respect to participation, when we bring all the other counties in we will have well over 400,000 persons participating.

Senator ALLEN. Well over 400,000 persons?

Mr. BRYANT. Yes; it is that now.

Senator ALLEN. And the anticipated bonus would be how much then?

Mr. BRYANT. I would anticipate that the bonus by 1975 will probably reach as much as $130 or $140 million, maybe more.