Should we not, then, have some kind of indication from the Department of Agriculture early in the year in order to say only take some applications, only do certain things? But instead it is indicated that it was open, go ahead and do it, encourage, and then they come along and say this is all you can get.

Senator CRANSTON. Does that complete your opening statement? Mr. ROBLES. Yes.

Senator CRANSTON. Thank you very much. It is very interesting.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. COHEN, REPRESENTING MAYOR KEVIN H. WHITE OF BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. COHEN. My name is Steve P. Cohen.

I am a member of the staff of Mayor Kevin H. White of Boston. Boston has not had a Summer Lunch Program before. Last year's experience shows why that has been the case. We had several conversations with the State education department in which they told us it didn't look like there would be funds available. As a result, none of the agencies with which we were talking about summer program planning applied-for the summer feeding program.

At the very end of June and into July, moneys were released but by then it was too late because we were told all the money Massachusetts was going to get had been distributed to cities and towns that had their applications in earlier.

This year we have been attempting to follow the guidelines

Senator CRANSTON. You were told you were too late to get in last year?

Mr. COHEN. Yes.

Senator CRANSTON. When did you get your application in last year? Mr. COHEN. We did not apply. We were told it did not make sense to do so.

Senator CRANSTON. When were you told that?

Mr. COHEN. At first we were told that, I would say in April or May, and so it was just a conversational piece of information. Then in June, summer program planning was going on. At the very end of June the money was made available. All of a sudden, though, we were told it wasn't going to be available in Boston. We were going to start applying but then were told not to because it didn't make sense because all the money was previously committed.

This year we are gathering information about agencies that do want to run the program in Massachusetts. So far we have more than 40 sponsors in the city of Boston with close to 100 sites and, although there are probably 54,000 young people eligible because of income standards, we have only been able to identify 13,000 so far we would like to feed every day.

Even if we only feed the 13,000 a day and the program is run an average of 9 weeks, we are talking about an expenditure of roughly $300,000 Federal under the summer feeding subsidy program.

Our problem is that the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts has an allocation of $157,000 and, under the present priority system, none of this money is available to Boston-because Boston had no program last year.

We are thus in the unpleasant bind as a city of suggesting to private and public agencies that they make application for a program even though the program we are selling may not be funded and the application process may be all wasted effort.

What frustrates us particularly about these famous handbooks, which are excellent, is that the handbooks only became available in Massachusetts in late March, with just 50 copies made available for the entire State. With over 40 sponsors in the city of Boston alone— and at least that many outside the city-there is really no way we can use the information presented in these pamphlets to develop programs. It is a very frustrating position to be in.

We believe that agencies in the city of Boston will not have a chance to operate a program this summer unless the funding level reaches a much more reasonable amount than apparently is presently appropriated. We would like to see if there is any help available.

I will stop my formal testimony at that point.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. COHEN

Despite the existence of real need, there has not been any large-scale implementation of federally-aided summer feeding programs in Boston. Over 54,000 young persons in the City can be classified as members of low income famliies, and thus potentially eligible for subsidized feeding programs. If organized educational and recreational programs could reach all of these eligible youngsters during the twelve-week summer period, the various agencies involved could spend as much as $1,620,000 of Federal money to provide daily feeding programs.

In 1971, several public and private agencies in Boston contemplated introducing summer feeding programs for poor youngsters. During the latter part of the Spring of that year, we were led to understand in conversations with employees of the State agency (the Department of Education) and the local office of the Department of Agriculture, that there was real doubt that funds would be available for prorgams in Boston. As a result, summer program planning by the various agencies involved did not focus on providing feeding to participating youngsters. At the very end of June 1971, the White House released some of the funds we had been told would be available, and it looked as if summer feeding might be undertaken. At that point, however, we learned that the money available for Massachusetts would only cover programs that already had applications on file at the State's Department of Education.

This year, 1972, we do plan to apply for summer feeding money for several programs in Boston even though several obstacles could prevent our being funded: The State has been told it will be funded only at the 1971 level. Programs that were funded in 1971 have first priority on money for this summer-and then, only up to the 1971 level of funding.

Although the original due date for applications was April 1, 1972, agencies planning to apply in Massachusetts were not able to get copies of the application forms until the last week of March.

Some excellent handbooks prepared by the Department of Agriculture that explain summer feeding program operation and the duties of sponsoring agencies are not yet in adequate supply for distribtuion to agencies that are contemplating applying.

Even though the application due date has been changed to April 17th, we are still having difficulty elicting applications from many agencies that wonder why they are being asked to go through the application procedure for a program that is clearly underfunded. If the funds are not increased to make it possible for cities like Boston to get summer feeding programs, it will mean the offer of summer feeding money is just another replay of the unkept promises routine that makes low income people and agencies that serve them distrustful of every level of government.

With the cooperation of the Massachusetts Department of Education, the City of Boston has been canvassing public and private youth agencies throughout the City to determine what programs will operate this summer that could be used to provide summer feeding to eligible youngsters. Cooperating agencies include

the City's Youth Activities Commission, Parks and Recreation Department, and Model Cities Program as well as Action for Boston Community Development (the City's anti-poverty agency), and United Community Services (the consortium of agencies supported by Boston's United Fund).

In all, nearly 40 different sponsoring agencies plan to submit applications for funds for the feeding program for this summer. These agencies contemplate providing food this summer to at least 13,100 eligible children per day. Other agencies and other programs may also make application.

If all of these programs can be funded and implemented for this summer these agencies could spend in the area of $240,000 (assuming a daily outlay of $.50 per child).

Clearly, a program of this scale only does part of the job, reaching as it does just more than one-fifth of the eligible children in Boston. The tragedy is that given present funding levels and the current restrictions on spending priorities the program outlined above for the City of Boston calls for merely double the amount of federal subsidies now available to the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Inasmuch as the current allocation for Massachusetts is not even available to Boston because we had no program last year, quite clearly without speedy action at the federal level there will be no food available for Boston's youngsters this

summer.

Senator CRANSTON. I thank each of you for your helpful statements and whatever written statements you have prepared. We will accept them for the record.

I would like to direct three brief questions to each and all of you. If you would like to expand in writing, we would be happy to get it. in more detail.

First, do you feel these programs can be administered?

Mr. ROBLES. I personally feel so, Senator. I think we have two things here: No. 1, two of the largest users in our program are the Los Angeles city school system, the Los Angeles County school system; the city and county of Los Angeles itself compose the majority of our lunch program. I am sure that these agencies would not involve themselves with us if they did not feel that we had the administrative capabilities of conducting the program.

So I feel that the mismanagement was probably far and few between when you look at the total complexity of the program in itself.

Mr. NUGENT. I would echo Mr. Robles' comments here. There is no doubt in my mind this program can be efficiently managed. That's not to say perfectly managed. You are always going to have some situation where food goes to someone who doesn't need it.

WON'T WASTE FOOD

We had a situation in Detroit last year, opening day last summer, where the predicted number of youngsters didn't show up at one site. The volunteer worker gave the food to people in the neighborhood without checking income qualifications or whether they were youth. The fact remains that food would have been wasted. I would suggest that she had done a good thing in that case. The next day a full complement of people were there, and on succeeding days it was well administered. We have a 2-year record of administering this program tightly. We keep timecards on all volunteers, and I think it is quite possible for everyone to do similarly.

Mr. COHEN. We sincerely intend to make sure it is very tightly run. There are many different kinds of agencies, in the city, involved with

the administration of the programs. We are going to try to oversee them as best as possible.

Mr. NUGENT. Could I add one point?

Senator Cranston, I think any unreasonable restraints placed on this program in order to insure proper administration would drive the costs out of sight. There was a question this year as to whether the regulations would require the income certification of each child. Well, we just don't have the time or the staff to do that cost of thing, not when we are laying off 1,500 people.

Senator CRANSTON. You were all three present earlier when Senator Bellmon and I, and also Senator Percy, were pressing Mr. Hekman on the matter of adequate funding. Specifically, I questioned him about whether the 25-percent increase over lunch programs were getting up to that arbitrary figure that they had picked for the moment of $25.5 million was adequate in view of expanded programs, new programs, and longer communities.

How do you feel the 25-percent increase will meet the needs in your specific community?

25-PERCENT INCREASE INADEQUATE

Mr. NUGENT. Totally inadequate in Detroit's case, Senator. Last year we started out with 4,800. We reached 56,000 at the end of the summer. When you average the costs, we were hitting maybe 30,000, 35,000 throughout the summer. Of the 56,000 who left the program at the end of the summer, many will be looking to that again this summer. To feed that many, it will require $1.842 million.

Senator CRANSTON. How much of an increase, percentagewise, is that?

Mr. NUGENT. Approximately 75-percent increase, just, first of all, to reach the number of youngsters we reached by the end of last summer. Senator CRANSTON. How many more kids are there that should be reached?

Mr. NUGENT. We hope to reach 25,000 additional. That's the amount we feel we can organize to reach. We can't reach everyone yet. The total need will be $2.7 million-more than a doubling of our program. Senator CRANSTON. What about Los Angeles?

Mr. ROBLES. I wonder where they obtained their 25-percent increase. I looked back to the latter part of March and I received a phone call from Mr. Bradley from the Department of Agriculture, San Francisco; this was about 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning. He said, "How many people are you planning on feeding this year, can you give me a figure right now?" I said, "It is kind of impossible to give you a figure right now. I haven't even totaled the number." I said, "I will attempt to do it this morning and you can call me back."

I had a girl run a tape on all the requests that we had had, and it was within the hour he called back, and he said he needed the figures because they had to be submitted to Washington that day. So I gave him what I had, which was 175,000, and I was just wondering if this same type of phone call went out to other people, getting a snap judgment, and then, if this is the way they developed the budget figure. If so, they

are in error.

The other part of the question was that I think that the 25 percent is very inadequate. In our particular case, it wouldn't even begin to help us answer our total need. Our last computer runout on poverty youths in Los Angeles County totaled 600,000 youths that can meet the requirements for this particular program; and we are looking at 200,000 to 250.000 at this time.

Mr. NUGENT. Senator, the one point is that schools in Detroit and in other cities around the country may close earlier this year because of financial difficulties they are encountering. Our summer may not be the 11 weeks for which we are planning; it may be increased to 16 weeks.

Senator CRANSTON. I would like to ask you, Mr. Robles, about the 80-20 funding that Mr. Davis said was available. Do you have anything to

Mr. ROBLES. Yes. I was going to bring that up for the simple reason it seems like people out in the field don't know what USDA is doing here in Washington. At a meeting held on April 5, this last Wednesday, we had representatives from Ventura to San Diego County. In attendance were Mr. John Weber, director of the Food Service Bureau for the State of California. We had Mr. Don Score, SDA regional office, San Francisco, and Mr. Jack Bennett, SDA office, San Francisco, at the meeting.

Mr. Weber suggested to the group that we use the 80-20 that was spoken of earlier this morning. He suggested using it for the simple reason that the 30-cent lunch is almost unheard of with the rising food cost and delivery added into it and all these other things. He was encouraging the 80-20. Mr. Bennett immediately made the statement. He said, "I hate to throw a wet blanket on you, but we will look very closely at 80-20's, and as a matter of fact we will discourage them and only encourage the 30 cents." At that particular point, Mr. Weber and Mr. Bennett got into a little debate on this and it was never settled. Evidently we will be receiving some notification from either one of the two parties as to how it is going to work.

Here again it was-it created a little bit of confusion to all of these people; there were roughly 50 of them that registered in that morning for this program.

Here was a program to outline the sponsors handbook on April 5 with a deadline of April 17 to submit applications.

Again it is just a-cutting things very, very close.

Senator CRANSTON. Thank you.

Mr. Cohen, how much money are you seeking for Boston?

Mr. COHEN. Roughly $300,000.

Senator CRANSTON. How many children will that enable you to feed? Mr. COHEN. About 13,000 a day.

Senator CRANSTON. How many more need to be fed?

Mr. COHEN. Well, 30,000 or 40,000 more.

Senator CRANSTON. Do you feel you are not prepared to handle and distribute and so forth?

CAN'T DEPEND ON THE USDA

Mr. COHEN. Our problem is we can't elicit applications from any more agencies. They don't trust us and--because we have been encour