income below the current BLS urban low metropolitan budget for a elderly single or elderly couple. This income information is easily available from sources at the federal, state, and city or county levels, welfare, health, and Model City agencies.

Therefore, this definition of most needy individuals would determine eligible project areas and local site locations but would not be used to determine eligibility of individuals at the local site level.

(c) The main objection with this section is that it requires grants to go to county areas or cities thereby requiring super agencies to be developed and political subdivisions to be given priority. The immensity of the project area required by this regulation will allow money to be diffused at the project area level rather than being directed at specific areas of the greatest need. In addition, local site program planning and actual consumer participation would cease to be effective in such a large program.

We submit that the term "project area" should be replaced by the term "target areas". Target areas would be defined as those areas with the largest concentration of the most needy elderly. The target areas would then vary in size according to the density of low income elderly population. The concept of target area will assure that both the neediest individuals have first priority even if they live in a town smaller than 250,000, and that consumer participation will be effective. In accordance with the act, public and non-profit organizations within that target area would receive funds to administer one or more sites within the area.

Under the provisions for staffing at the State level, the regulations should specify that preference at the State level also be given to persons over the age of 60. There is no reason that the policy decisions at the State level for a program for Seniors cannot be decided by competent and qualified Seniors.

909.17 Advisory Assistance

It is not clear in the regulations who, specifically, will give advisory assistance, what is the meaning of "advisory assistance" and whether any assistance given is binding on the State Agency. The obscurity of this term indicates that the provision is solely an effort at token senior participation at the State level to compensate for the lack of consumer participation at the more important local and area levels.

We recommend Governing Boards at the local and area levels with separate but significant powers [see 909.33 (a)+(b)].

909.19 Identification of target groups to be served

(a) This SRS provision totally fails to specifically require that the definition of target groups i.e. areas be based on need [see 909.3 (a) our regulations, for definition of need.]

The majority of elderly in the nation meet one of the criteria set forth in § 909.1 and the use of this section would allow the State to fund most any group of elderly citizens.

Moreover, the SRS regulations by permitting-in § 909.3 (c)—the project area to be all encompassing (full county or full city), will allow the requirement that target groups be selected to be misleading. This will mean that a State could designate a county containing a substantial number of poor minority, as a project area. But since the target area is the entire county, the program could be established for the white majority in the county who may not be poor but will probably fit one of the broad criteria listed in 909.1. This administrative scheme for identifiying target groups will allow the minority group to be the basis upon which the grant was made but there is no guarantee that the minority group individuals should be actual participants.

We submit that target areas be designated as those areas in which 75% or more of the elderly population have an income lower than the BLS low budget standard.

(b) This section asks that the State Plan project areas serve primarily those individuals with greatest need. Nowhere does it specify a definition for "greatest need". The only readily accessible and most reliable data to indicate "greatest need" is income-related. In addition, the word primarily in reference to individuals with greatest need is vague and could mean a variety of percentages-we submit that it must mean that 75% of the elderly in the target area are low income (BLS standard).

If the "project area" definition is maintained, the State Plan should require that each project applicant list those areas within its boundaries which qualify as target areas (areas with 75% or more elderly living below the BLS low budget standard). The State will then fund the neediest of those target areas of each project area applicant that it approves.

If our definition of "target area" is adopted, then those neediest target areas will get funds directly from the State without having to go through an additional bureaucratic structure, i.e. the "project area". Within this target area there would be one or more sites which could, if feasible, be coordinated by a non-profit public or private organization within that target area.

909.20 Selection of areas for project awards

(a) The regulations do not specify any percentage requirements for the project area that "will include major concentrations" of persons with low income. The following questions occur: (1) What is a major concentration-how many people?, how large an area?, (2) How many major concentrations of low income elderly should there be within a project area-2 or 32? The SRS definition of project area requires such a large area that most any county or city over 250,000 in the U.S. would qualify for a grant since most do contain some (how many) major (how many individuals) areas of concentration of low income individuals. If the SRS project area definition is maintained, the State Plan should require that project areas receive only enough money to fund nutrition sites in those highest priority areas of major concentrations of low income elderly. Major concentration area of low income elderly is to be defined as that area containing 75% or more elderly living below the BLS standard. This will prevent a project area from funding areas without "greatest need" in addition to areas of major concentration.

If our target area definition is used [909.19 (a)], we submit that the target area should have at least 75% of its elderly living at or below the BLS standard. The site should be located in close proximity to the majority of low income participants.

(b) This section clearly fails to provide a priority for minority participants. We submit that minority groups should be given priority and preference by the State in the granting of awards in accordance with the legislation (Sec. 705 (a) (4)).

To give preferential treatment, the State is obligated to make certain that minority participation is considerably higher than the percentage of minority elderly in the State. The regulation should read as follows:

(1) On a statewide basis, the program must serve at least twice as many minority elderly as the percentage of elderly persons in the State.

(2) If the SRS definition of project area is maintained [909.3 (c)], the each project area (county or city) must serve at least twice as many minority elderly as the percentage of minority elderly that reside in the project area. 909.21

Project Awards

(a) The provision that political subdivisions will receive a major grant to service an entire county or city will inevitably lead to an impersonal political program whose administration and objectives will be reshaped every four years not by the participants but by the majors and county councilmen. We submit that political subdivisions be given lowest priority by the States when awarding grants.

(b) Clearly, if project areas are to be so massive in scope and size, it will be almost impossible for the State agency to make awards to "projects" operated by minority individuals that are able to serve such massive areas. Inevitably, the grantee of such a large project area will be a political subdivision or public or non-profit organization controlled by majority interests.

Since it is necessary, at this time, to work within the SRS "project area" definition, we submit that contracts and awards be granted to twice as many minority operators within the State as the percentage of minority elderly in the State; on a local level, awards and contracts should be made so that, at a minimum, twice as many minority operators in the local site areas receive contracts as the percentage of minority elderly in that area.

The provision, "to the extent feasible", is vague and ineffectual. This allows the States to exert very minor effort to involve programs or potential local sites managed by minority individuals. There should be strict provision for

active outreach to all minority group organizations in project major concentration areas. AOA (SRS) should require documentation of this effort i.e. how many and what groups were contacted and what assistance was afforded to them.

A strong outreach requirement at both State and project area levels would encourage groups of minority and elderly individuals to apply as project area or site administrators.

(c) Again, such a large project area with a grant to one agency eliminates the idea of consumer participation and control (refer to our criticism and suggestions in [909.3 (c)]).

(d) This provision is at best meaningless and at worst, infringes on the independence of the grantee. The requirement that the State Agency shall secure comments on the proposed project from local government units effectively puts the private agencies at the political mercy of the local government units. The adverse effects of this provision for an agency at conflict with the political heirarchy of city or county are obvious. We submit that this entire section be eliminated.

(e) The requirement that each project must serve an average of at least 100 meals daily throughout the project area could be too restrictive if the project is serving a poor rural area and its facilities are inadequate to serve as many as required.

AOA should provide a timetable for projects indicating at what point they should have achieved their goal of 100.

909.22 Strengthening of Existing Programs.

If the funds for the nutrition program are to be directed to target areas and low income elderly, the issue of strengthening existing programs should be secondary.

If existing programs are in areas of greatest need (target areas) as determined by data available to the State from census, health, welfare etc., the supplemental funds received from Title VII should increase the number of low income elderly participants in proportion to the amount of funds received. 909.24 Opportunity for a hearing

The opportunity for a hearing should be extended to the local project site applicants as well as to the area nutrition project applicants. The fair hearing should be held before an impartial referee of the State. Such referee shall not have had any involvement in the initial rejection decision.

If satisfaction is not obtained by a state hearing, the nutrition project applicant should be afforded the opportunity for a regional HEW/AOA appeal hearing.

909.25 Public Information

Public Information should be directed at and emphasized for groups within target areas of low-income elderly which would be able to provide sites for the nutrition program. The State should provide in their plan of operation the manner in which they will extend assistance to projects for low income elderly i.e. providing actual personnel and services to the project to prepare them for funding.

States having portions of Indian reservations within their boundaries shall provide additional outreach services and technical assistance to this most seriously malnourished of the country's population.

The following information in addition to program publicity must be available upon demand at State, county and city levels:

1. State Plan of Operation

2. Grant Application

3. Subcontracts with individual sites

4. Reports to the Secretary as required in 909.27

5. Competitive bidding proposals as required in 909.45 (c).

909.26

State Administrative Costs

We find excessive the 10% of Federal funds allowed to State Administrative costs. The administrative resources should be a combination of 5% or less of nutrition funds and Title III administrative funds. Certainly, there should be no provision for allowing administrative expenditures to exceed 10%-this clearly contradicts the legislation.

909.31 Standards of Personnel Administration

(b) There is no reason other than for stalling purposes, that an action plan including a timetable for equal employment opportunities must be developed. Equal employment opportunities should be provided immediately. Moreover, in keeping with the legislation, explicit provisions in the State Plan shall be made for preference to minorities for hiring by project area.

(c) Although the Secretary has no authority with respect to selection, tenure of office or compensation of any individual employed, there must be an explicit requirement that all nutrition program hiring be subject to the federal minimum wage.

909.32 Staffing of Projects

This provision neglects to provide for preference to be given to staff directors from minority groups. Minority individual applications for staff director positions should be given preference.

The regulations should emphasize that preference to persons 60 or over should be given in the hiring for all staff positions-including the position of project director.

909.33 Project Councils

If the nutrition program is to be for Seniors, run by Seniors, this section is unacceptable. It does not provide a method of choosing council members; it does not allow for representation by elderly in local site activities; it fails to provide the Council with any powers that will truly affect important aspects of the program. To remedy these deficiencies, the regulation should provide the following:

1. There should be one governing board for each project area, and a governing board at each local site within the project area.

2. Participants in the local sites should be able to choose, through an electoral process, which of their fellow participants should be members of the area wide project, and which of their fellow members within the local site should be members of the local governing board.

The local site council should be made up of nine persons: 7 participants, one outreach worker, and one person competent in the field of service in which the nutrition program is provided. All of these council members should be elected after nomination by participants in the program. These elections should be held within two months of the beginning of site operations, and annually thereafter. Area council governing boards should consist of one participant from each local site and non-participant person(s) competent in the field of service in which the nutrition program is provided and persons knowledgeable with regard to the needs of the elderly person. Non-participant members of the Council should number no more than 4 the number of participants on the Council. The Project Council should be elected annually. During the first year of operation only, the 14 non-participant members of the Project Council should be appointed by the area grant director. Thereafter, all participants in the project area should elect these members.

3. The local site governing boards should have the following powers:

a. To establish within their local site a low flat fee to be no more than 30% of raw food costs. (See 909.406)

b. To establish measurable program objectives for local site nutrition services and social activities, and to monitor, on a regular basis, the sites' progress towards these objectives (909.44),

c. To cooperate and assist in efforts to evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and cost of the local site program. (909.45)

d. To decide upon the best methods of outreach for its prospective participants and conduct ongoing public information activities specifically designed to inform target group individuals in the site area (909.46)

e. To direct the local site director as to the following: the particular dietary needs arising from health requirements, and ethnic backgrounds of elderly individuals in the project and to decide on over-all menus; how many meals it would want site to serve above required 5 meals a week-on the basis of the need the participants recognized for such service.

f. To determine which method of food preparation shall be used in the local site, and to enter into agreements with profit-making organizations to implement these decisions.

g. To hire and fire local site directors.

4. The Governing Board of the Area Council shall have the following responsibilities:

a. To advise local site councils as to available methods of outreach, food preparation and service, and social services.

b. To advise on expansion of services, sites, and selection of additional sites in newly funded target areas.

c. To serve as a resource and coordinating body for the local sites scattered throughout the target area.

d. To purchase food and other services in bulk so as to reduce wholesale costs for each individual site.

participants should be members of the area wide project, and which of their fellow members within the local site should be members of the local governing board.

909.34 Selection of congregate meal sites

(a) The State Plan does not provide that project areas be chosen containing especially needy elderly. It asks only that those areas within the project area (this could mean one local area or 30 local areas) having major concentrations (what is major?) of older persons with low incomes should have a site located in that area for serving meals.

This could mean that a wealthy county could receive a grant for an agency within the count even though the county may have only two major (2) areas of concentration.

We suggest that the State Plan ask the project area applicant to identify target areas within its boundaries (major concentration areas), list them in terms of decreasing order of needy, indicating the percentage of low income elderly in each target area, and give funds to those areas containing 75% or more elderly below the BLS standard. The State shall give funding to as many sites in those target areas as are needed to feed those 75% or more elderly in that area.

An area of major concentration within a project area, should be defined as an area containing 75% or more low income elderly (BLS Standard).

(c) We suggest that the provision contained in this section may prevent appropriate and agreeable settings from participating as local sites in the program. We suggest that a site have six months to comply with specific standards require at the Federal, Local and State levels. This will enable the elderly themselves to take part in the designing and fashioning of their site-as provided in the regulations as a duty for an area council (see section 909.33).

909.35 Identification of persons to be served

We submit that the State Office on Aging should aid the local project in the task of identifying the total numbers of target group individuals in a project area and the location of such individuals. Target group individuals should be defined as those with low incomes as defined by the BLS Standard.

The State assistance should be in the form of data already compiled by the agency and personnel trained to do population surveys.

909.36 Nutrition Requirements

(a) Again, the local board should have the opportunity to make and follow through on the decision to serve more than the required five meals a week to participants. [See 909.33 (3) (F)]. They would make the decision on the basis of their evaluation of the need for such service. The State should provide additional funds to those needy target area sites within the project area that make such a decision.

(c) Special menus should also be the prerogative of the local site council [See 909.33(3) (f)]. This would eliminate the obvious laxity allowed by the "where feasible and appropriate" language. Again, the regulations are enabling the large super agency to be excused for exerting as little effort as possible to provide participants with guarantees that their needs take priority over the needs of the super agency administration.

The SRS regulations, again, do not qualify the phrase, "where necessary" thereby allowing States and super agencies to determine whether or not they want to involve themselves in the additional administration of homebound meals. The regulation should require that potential and past participants should be