It is not adequate for quality nutrition programs. We have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding about the importance of nutrition anyway-even in dealing with the middle class. Certainly, in dealing with the children we are dealing with, they are that much. more further behind the game. We are calling it Head Start, and we haven't even caught up.

Senator KENNEDY. What about how the various agencies sort of pass the buck, so to speak. Could you tell us, in the support programs, do you find this happens at all? Or, are they simply underfinanced? Mrs. MALLOY. Primarily, they are saying they are underfinanced. First, you believe and understand this-you hear it so often. Then you find out something like this $150 million return. It hits you in the face and you say, "I have been fooled again."

Senator KENNEDY. Mrs. Gustafson?
Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. Good morning.

I have made that trip down from Boston many times and arrived late, too, so we understand it.

STATEMENT OF MRS. SUSAN GUSTAFSON, DIRECTOR, NEWTONWALTHAM, MASS., HEAD START PROGRAM

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Thank you for your indulgence. I am happy to be here, finally. I feel I have been waiting a long time to have this opportunity to talk to you, and anyone else from the Senate who would listen to this rather sad tale.

I think I would call it "administrative dodging" that has gone on with this program that was intended for children. If I could take the time to tell you some of that tale, I believe you would find some of the facts very interesting. I recognize some of my cohorts, here from Massachusetts, and I am glad to see them.

I think they have told you some of what it feels to be like, on the local end of this. I myself feel I have a unique viewpoint because I am not only a local Head Start director from the towns of Waltham, Arlington, Brookline, and Watertown; but, in my former job, I was the Head Start coordinator at the State level. That is where I picked up a lot of experience in the Special Food Service Program-much of it sad.

The theme of this tale, Senator Kennedy, is a perversion of the intent of Congress. I am thoroughly familiar with the Special Food Services legislation, and what I thought was its intent. However, as we go along, we see that it has not worked out the way it was intended. Late in 1968, some of my fellow workers at the State OEO offices heard about the availability of food service money, and spread the word to local agencies, particularly Head Start.

They got together with Mr. Stalker's office, and he also helped to spread this news. Mr. Stalker sent out a memo, which was a very good one, explaining it. At the time we did not catch the little nuances, in there, where he was emphasizing that this program was for expansion. No one noticed that. It became more significant as time went on.

76-300-72-pt. 3A- -6

The program expanded at, I think a normal rate, but got a boost after the hunger hearings in Massachusetts. I think more people began applying at that time-about the summer of 1969.

MEMOS CUT FUNDS FROM PROGRAM

The next event that I noticed that was important for people in the field was the Washington memo from the Department of Agriculture of November 12. This, I think, took great liberties with the definition that the Congress had written as to which institutions were eligible for the service.

I am sure people have mentioned this already this morning, that it cut Head Start programs out of being eligible for the program. Specifically by saying that if they had not applied by November 1, 1969, they would not be eligible.

A few months later, in February, the New York regional office came out with a memo further interpreting what was meant by eligible institutions. Only, this time, I would say it was a little more positive in that they traduced that if you had a newly created Head Start program after November 1, then you could apply for funds.

Senator KENNEDY. Could you give that to me one more time? Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Yes. A memo came from the Department of Agriculture in Washington on November 12, 1969, defining what was meant by eligible service institutions. In the original law, as you no doubt know, service institutions are defined in a certain way.

In this memo they said that Head Start was not eligible to apply for funds. They explained that the one exception would be if a promise had been made to a Head Start agency to become part of the Special Food Services Program before the date of November 1, 1969. That contract should then be kept, and those were the only Head Starts that could apply.

I know the memo came out on the 12th, and the date of the ruling there was the first of the month. Then followed the New York memo, which was a little more liberal, because it traduced from the Washington memo in that, if you had a new Head Start program that developed after November 1, you could apply.

Senator KENNEDY. What sense does that make?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. It is too arbitrary. It was one of the clues that led me to start investigating to see what was this monkey business that was going on. It does not make any sense to me.

Senator KENNEDY. In effect, it cut off eligibility at one date, but also said if you have a new program that you may be eligible, even after that date?

Is that not true?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. That is what it says. It does not make too much sense. It sounds like someone is trying to find a way of limiting it.

Senator KENNEDY. What does that do to a local community? Parents that just want to have their children participate in Head Start, take advantage of these programs, and don't have a great deal of time to read through regulations or to be traveling either to Boston or New York to the regional office. Then, when they are confronted with this kind of, as you point out, arbitrary regulations-what does that do to them?

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I am the director of the first parent-controlled Head Start program in New England. The parents are trying to administer that program as best as they can without, relying on professional staff. I would say that our program came under parent control in February 1970, which would mean, if you want to fool around with definitions, that we could have applied for that money. But it took a year to straighten out whether we were really eligible or not, because it was, indeed confusing.

So in all that year, we could have been using the money that was going into food for some other very valuable services in Head Start. In our program, that would have amounted to at least $15,000, and at the most $30,000 to $40,000.

Senator KENNEDY. Just because of administrative bungling, I would think you would have to label it that way.

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. I would like to say that the State Department is very helpful, but it seems the bungling was on a much higher levelwhich I did discover later on.

Would you agree with that?

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. We don't want to interfere with the Agriculture Department and the Labor Department, seeing people here. We hope that they will find ways of funding those programs.

All right, Mrs. Gustafson.

CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO INCLUDE PROGRAM

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. After these two memos-one from Washington and one from New York-as you say, we were confused. At that point-I was at the State level-I got a call from a local program which said that they were willing to write to Congressman Vanik and ask him directly what his intention was in developing the legislation. They asked him, "Did you or did you not intend Head Start to benefit under the definition of eligible child-care institutions?" He wrote us back a very nice, succinct letter saying that, "Yes, indeed, he had intended Head Start to be part of that program." I have a copy of that letter in my office, which is one of my proudest possessions.

Ironically enough, just at the time we were writing Congressman Vanik, we were thinking that maybe there was a shortage of money and we were concerned to get aid to apply. Then there seemed to be a surplus of money. As we suddenly heard from the State office, "Please help us go out and beat the bushes and get applicants." It is a very confusing situation. One time we hear that there is no money, and then we hear there is too much money. "Quick, quick, let's get rid of it." That was the summer of 1970.

By the fall of 1970, I happened to be in Washington because Head Start was in jeopardy of being cut, on a total level, the whole program. I took this opportunity to get an appointment at the Department of Agriculture.

I had a very interesting time there. I arrived early; and my eyes sort of wandered, I guess, where they shouldn't have. I saw piles and piles of letters on someone's desk from irate Head Start and Community Action directors asking what the story was, why weren't they eligible? They had been told they weren't eligible, and they wanted to have it clarified by the Department of Agriculture.

When I was finally announced to the man that I had the appointment with, I asked him how he was going to respond to those letters. He was very uncomfortable, but he did tell me that he was going to say something about a "shortage of funds" in his letters.

Then he kind of told me, on the side, when I pressed him, "What do you mean," and "Why do you do this?" He said, "Well, we had made an arrangement with the Office of Child Development." I was irate, but he wouldn't tell me exactly. Then he said, "You should really talk to the Office of Child Development."

I did. The Office of Child Development said that they had agreed to cutting off Head Start from being eligible for the Special Food Services Program, because "they" felt it was a reasonable request.

I do not think that is reasonable at all. I think Head Start children definitely fit the needs and the definitions in the original law. We spent a lot of time knocking on doors and making sure we get the poorest children into our programs. If you cut Head Start out, I think you are moving up into the more middle-income level, which is OK, but I think this program is trying to help the neediest children. At that point, we began, in Massachusetts, to put as much pressure on Washington as possible. We organized letter writing campaigns, and so forth. But we never really got too much satisfaction; because. most of the time, the responses to our letters were that so-and-so would check with the Department of Agriculture. I think that is going in a circuitous path.

My concern, after all of that work, is that the Congress carry out its full legislative process and see that-once it has created a lawthat it is, indeed, carried out by the administration. If it is not, the only people who suffer are the children-and that was said somewhat sarcastically.

I should tell you that, in contrast to Sheila, I am lucky. I am one, I estimate, of about six Head Start programs out of 23 in Massachusetts that was lucky enough to receive funding for Special Food Services Program.

REDEFINED AS "NEW" TO GET FUNDS

When I say, "I," I mean as the director of Community United. We had to attain these funds through a rather devious method-by defining ourselves as "new," when it was not exactly true.

Really, Head Start had operated in our area for 3 years prior to the time we applied for the money; but we said we were new, because we were under the auspices of a new agency.

I know of one other Head Start group that did the same thing. They changed auspices and then called themselves new. There were three who called themselves "new" because they changed from operating during the summer to operating during the year. Then there was another one that added some children who went all day long, rather than just for a certain portion of the day. There is an argument that this changed the whole nature of the program and thus they were new, too.

I think it is rather pathetic we had to go and make up those limp excuses, because:

1. We are eligible by law, from the very beginning;

2. As I said before, the Head Start children are really the neediest; and

3. It is pathetic; because, when we don't have this kind of money we have to stretch very limited Head Start resourceswhich is not good at all.

You are probably well aware of what this does for children. I am sure people who testified on Day Care know, too, how much more alert the children are. How ready to learn when they are not hungry, and they have more stamina and less sickness. Really, it is such an important program.

We cover 3- to 5-year-olds, and it is in that period that it is very important to have good nutrition for the growth of muscles and bones. As an agency director, I have to admit that the Special Food Services Program is a terrific boon to our budget. Once we got the funding, we were able to open new center for bilingual children. Later on, I requested that we serve breakfast to the kids in the bilingual center and that was granted. I think that in that area it was a terrific need. I am glad they were able to do that.

I have a request, Senator Kennedy, and that is three things:

1. That the memos sent out by the Department of Agriculture be rescinded;

2. That in the development of new legislation, Head Start be specifically mentioned as eligible; and

3. That the entire Special Food Services Program for children be funded at such a level to really meet the need.

Senator KENNEDY. That is very precise and very exact, and I think extremely valuable and accurate.

Let me go back into a couple of areas. As I understand, in the funding of your program for these children, you have to go to a variety of different agencies or departments. Is that not so?

Also in the development of Section 13, where the Congress was attempting to coordinate these efforts, this, too, is part of the problem?

MANY PROGRAMS IN CONFUSED POSITIONS

Mrs. GUSTAFSON. Yes, some of the Head Start programs, depending on who operates the programs, can get a very confused position. I think the worst example would be: If you were a program funded to a community action agency, then delegated to a school system, and you were interested in getting Special Food Services Programs for children.

We have a case in Worcester, I must say, you would not know what to do. To this day, Worcester does not have help in meeting their food costs. They must take it out of the other operating costs for Head Start.

Senator KENNEDY. Tell us about that. You mean a diversion of Title I funds, for example?

Mr. GUSTAFSON. That is a possibility.

Senator KENNEDY. Could you tell us just about that? How, on the one hand, funding for educationally under-served young people are being diverted to the food area?

Mrs. MALLOY. I am at a loss to explain. I know that it is possible under the legislation of Title I, so as not to duplicate effort to do that. Senator KENNEDY. It is being done, as I understand it.

Mrs. MALLOY. Yes, I understand that, but I would question that we are not eligible for Section 13.