Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION BLUMENFELD, District Judge. This ease is a multi-pronged attack upon the administration of the Food Stamp program in the state of Connecticut. At ■ stake is the very ability of thousands of low-income households in this state to obtain for themselves the means for affording a nutritiously adequate diet. As both the cost of food and the rate of unemployment climb during the depression we are suffering in this normally prosperous state, it must be apparent that the need for an effective, efficient and humanely operated food stamp program is becoming ever more imperative. Plaintiffs challenge the effectiveness of the program as currently administered, contending that in a variety of ways the defendants are violating both the letter and spirit of the Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2025 (1970), and the regulations and instructions promulgated thereunder by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the Department of Agriculture, the federal agency charged with overseeing the operation of the food stamp programs in the various states. After listening to three days of testimony and examining numerous briefs, affidavits, deposition transcripts and exhibits submitted by the parties, this court has become convinced that there are serious deficiencies in the manner in which the state is operating its food stamp program. While there are often external factors beyond the control of any government agency which may account for inadequate administration of a program, the inadequacy in this case seems to be explainable in terms of foot-dragging efforts somewhat more noticeable than a simple lack of enthusiasm. By so limiting its efforts, the defendants have acted in derogation of the purpose of the Food Stamp Act, best articulated in the congressional declaration of policy at 7 U.S.C. § 2011 (1970): “It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, that the Nation’s abundance of food should be utilized cooperatively by the States, the Federal Government, local governmental units, and other agencies to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population and raise levels of nutrition among low-income households. The Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. The Congress further finds that increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial manner of our agricultural abundances and will strengthen our agricultural economy, as well- as result in more orderly marketing and distribution of food. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a food stamp program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet through normal channels of trade.” The Food Stamp Act was passed in 1964 and was designed to operate in a relatively simple manner in order to insure that all needy households would receive food stamps. At the national level the program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture. It is charged, inter alia, with establishing national eligibility standards, including income and work requirements. 7 U.S.C. § 2014 (b), (c), (d) (1970). It is worth noting that states have a choice as to whether they will participate in the food stamp program. But once the decision to participate is made, a state is bound to follow the requirements of 7 U.S.C. § 2019 (1970) which provides, inter alia, that the state is charged with the responsibility of certifying eligible households. Moreover, the state, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e), must submit a plan of operation to the FNS for its approval. The financial burden imposed upon the state is almost de minimis. Not only does the federal government pay for 100% of the benefits received by the participants, it will also reimburse the state for 50% of the cost of administering the program. Food Stamp Reg. § 271.2, 40 Fed.Reg. 1887 (1975). Connecticut has elected to participate in the food stamp program and thus has subjected itself to the requirements of the federal statute and regulations in operating its program. The scheme itself is simple. Eligible households may purchase stamps at less than their face value. The number of stamps which they are entitled to purchase and the amount which they must pay for them is determined on the basis of nationally established standards. The amount which they must pay is called the “purchase requirement.” Food Stamp Reg. § 270.1(qq), 40 Fed.Reg. 1883 (1975). The difference between the face value of the stamps and the “purchase requirement” is referred to as the “bonus.” In many states, including Connecticut, the participating households are not issued food stamps directly by the issuing agency (in Connecticut, the Department of Welfare, see Conn. Gen.Stat.Ann. § 17-12a (Supp.1974) ). Rather, they are given an Authorization to Purchase (ATP) card which states on its face the amount that the household is entitled to purchase and the “purchase requirement.” The participating householder then takes the card to a bank and buys the food stamps. These stamps are acceptable at their face value at participating food stores and, in some eases, participating dining facilities. Plaintiffs in this case are a number of food stamp eligible Connecticut citizens who have experienced a variety of difficulties in either making their initial application or during the course of their participation in the food stamp program. Their complaint raises several issues on behalf of themselves and the classes which they seek to represent in this action: (1) the state has failed to meet its obligation to “undertake effective action ... to inform low-income households concerning the availability and benefits of the food stamp program and insure the participation of eligible households.” 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5) (1970); (2) the state has failed to allow applicants to apply for food stamps when they first express a desire to apply and has imposed great burdens upon applicants by refusing to conduct telephone interviews and only providing home interviews under rare circumstances; (3) the state fails to process applications within the 30-day period required by law; (4) the state has failed to grant automatic forward adjustments for those persons whose applications are not processed within 30 days; (5) the state has failed to provide immediate emergency authorizations to applicants with zero purchase requirement; (6) the state has failed to provide immediate certifications for households on general assistance; (7) the state has failed to provide ATP cards prior to the next issuance date for those households whose ATP cards are either lost, stolen, rendered unusable or not mailed through administrative error; (8) the state has failed to implement a variable purchase option plan that conforms to federal standards; (9) the state has failed to implement a program to provide for 60-day continued certification for those persons who move within the state; and (10) the state is violating the plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the law by refusing to provide benefits from the date of application, rather than the date on which an application is approved. Preliminary Matters There are several preliminary matters which must be considered before proceeding to the merits. First, although the defendants have not challenged the jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiffs have extensively briefed the issue and argued that any one of a number of bases exist for jurisdiction. It is not necessary to discuss the issue in detail, because 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (1970) provides a jurisdictional basis for this action. That provision grants original jurisdiction to the district courts “of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce . . ..” As one of the articulated purposes of the Food Stamp Act is to “strengthen our agricultural economy, as well as [to] result in more orderly marketing and distribution of food,” 7 U.S.C. § 2011 (1970), it is clear that this action arises out of an Act of Congress which regulates commerce. Lidie v. State of California, 478 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1973); Bennett v. Butz, 386 F.Supp. 1059 (D.Minn.1974); Giguere v. Affleck, 370 F.Supp. 154, 157 (D.R.I.1974); Moreno v. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, 345 F.Supp. 310, 312-313 (D.D.C.1972), aff'd, 413 U.S. 528, 93 S.Ct. 2821, 37 L.Ed.2d 782 (1973). Second, the plaintiffs seek class certification of this action pursuant to Fed R.Civ.P. 23. Their proposed definition of the class is set out in the margin. More accurately, they seek certification of a series of classes, each composed of all those who are aggrieved by the various policies of the- defendants which are under attack in this action. The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) have, been satisfied in all but one instance. That exception involves a challenge to the alleged failure of the defendants to implement a 60-day continuing certification plan for those participating households who move within the state. For reasons that will be fully discussed infra, none of the named plaintiffs has standing to raise that issue and therefore there is no class representative. With regard to all other claims, the classes are hereby certified as defined by the plaintiffs. Finally, it is necessary to note the current procedural status of this litigation. The case was originally heard on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. However, it became apparent that the plaintiffs were not seeking a restraining order to preserve the status quo pendente lite, but rather were asking this court for mandatory injunctive relief which would require substantial changes in the administration of the food stamp program. That form of relief is not appropriate at a preliminary stage of the proceedings. See King v. Saddleback Junior College District, 425 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 979, 92 S.Ct. 342, 30 L.Ed.2d 294 (1971); Unicon Management Corp. v. Koppers Co., 366 F.2d 199 (2d Cir. 1966); Valentine v. Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority, 355 F.Supp. 1240 (S.D.Ind.1973); United States v. Feature Sports, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 966 (S.D.N.Y.1969). Accordingly, the parties were given an opportunity to supplement the record with additional affidavits and documentation and agreed to permit this ¿matter to go forward to a decision on the merits. The “Full Participation" Program, Title 7, U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5), a part of the 1971 amendments to the Food Stamp Act, see Act of January 11, 1971, Pub.L.No. 91-671, § 6(b), 84 Stat. 2048, introduced a brand new concept into the food stamp program. Beyond just making food stamps available, Congress required the states to take active steps to insure that the availability of this benefit ripened into realization for all eligible households. This “full participation” amendment provides “that the State agency shall undertake effective action, including the use of services provided by other federally funded agencies and organizations, to inform, low-income households concerning the availability and, benefits of the food stamp program and insure the participation of eligible households.” 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5) (emphasis added). The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants have failed to satisfy this statutory mandate and look to this court for an order directing the defendants to expand and intensify their “full participation” efforts. A. Before considering the evidentiary underpinnings of this challenge, it is necessary at the outset to define the scope of a state’s responsibility under 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5). All parties are in agreement that, at a minimum, the statute requires effective action to inform low-income households of the availability of food stamp benefits. The plaintiffs, however, seeking to breathe some content into the statutory clause — “and insure the participation of eligible households” — , argue that the defendants must also take steps to minimize the application burden upon those already informed of the availability of food stamps. Burdensome application requirements, they argue, are inconsistent with the goal of insuring full participation. The defendants just as firmly maintain that the statute only requires efforts to inform persons of the program’s existence. The defendants’ watered down interpretation of the statutory mandate is supported by regulations and instructions issued by the FNS. Those regulations interpret this section of the statute, which FNS has called “outreach,” as requiring only, “Any communicative effort performed cooperatively or singularly by Federal, State, or local agencies and organizations, or by individuals, to inform low-income households of the availability and benefits of the program and to encourage the participation of eligible households.” Food Stamp Reg. § 270.1 (nn), 40 Fed.Reg. 1883 (1975). See FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6(111) (1971). Similarly, in another regulation, Food Stamp Reg. § 271.1 (k), 40 Fed.Reg. 1886 (1975), the FNS severely weakened the statutory language of “insure the participation of eligible households” by providing that states need only “encourage” their participation. Were this court to defer to the administrative construction of 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5), the defendants’ conception of their responsibilities would clearly prevail. Normally, “[w]hen faced with a problem of statutory construction, this Court shows great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.” Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Hickel, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 435 F.2d 440, 444-445 (1970). However, “[cjourts need not defer to an administrative construction of a statute where there are ‘compelling indications that it is wrong.’ Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 381, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1802, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969) . . . .” Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 94-95, 94 S.Ct. 334, 339, 38 L.Ed.2d 287 (1973); see R. V. McGinnis Theatres & Pay T.V., Inc. v. Video Independent Theatres, Inc., 386 F.2d 592 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014, 88 S.Ct. 1265, 20 L.Ed.2d 163 (1968); Government of Guam v. Foster, 362 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1966); Hometrust Life Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 298 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1962). “Administrative regulations cannot be allowed to distort plain and obvious statutory language.” Hoover v. United States, 348 F.Supp. 502, 505 (C.D.Cal.1972). In this case the clear and obvious language of the statutory mandate with which the defendants are bound to comply is being distorted by administrative regulations. In Bennett v. Butz, supra, the court was faced with a challenge, not to the adequacy of any individual state’s “full participation” program, but rather to the sufficiency of the FNS’s efforts to insure the compliance of all participating states with the statutory requirement. Upon reviewing the statutory history of the Food Stamp Act and the considerations which led to strengthening the Act’s purpose by adding the “full participation” provision, a review which need not be repeated here, the court concluded: “The statutory outreach mandate reflects Congressional concern with token participation in the food stamp program. The statute uses strong language. Outreach efforts are to entail ‘effective action’ not only to inform poor people of the program’s benefits but also to ‘insure’ their participation. 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5).” 386 F.Supp. at 1065 (footnote not in original). The court thus properly emphasized that the statutory mandate is expressed in the conjunctive; there are two elements to it, a state’s program must both “inform” and “insure” participation. The plain language of the statute resists the efforts of both the FNS and the defendants to equate these two obligations and reduce a “full participation” program to solely a communicative effort. While informing low-income households of the availability of food stamp benefits is clearly a prerequisite to insuring the full participation of eligible households, a state has not fully satisfied its obligations by merely imparting such information. It must then take further steps to insure that those who are eligible actually apply for benefits and receive them with dispatch. Although the state obviously cannot force eligible households to participate, it can and must operate a food stamp program which actively insures participation by placing as few obstacles as possible in the way of those applying for benefits. A failure to do so would be as serious a violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5) as a failure to undertake an information imparting program. B. The informing and insuring elements of a full participation program are largely complementary and both necessary for an effective food stamp program. As a prelude to a consideration of these separate elements, it will be useful to take a grandstand view of what has been accomplished and observe the extent to which there has been a shortfall in achievement of the statutory goal of full participation. The statistical information which the parties have provided indicates that a large percentage of eligible households are not receiving food stamps in this state. Although this court does not have before it recent official statistics, the plaintiffs, at the hearing, did present a report of the Community Nutrition Institute, a “public interest” organization, which revealed that as of January 1974 the percentage of eligible households in Connecticut participating in the food stamp program was 43.9%. At that point in time, the national average was 39.2%. 4 CNI Weekly Report, No. 20 (May 16, 1974). Since that time, there are indications that the percentage may have improved. In January 1974, the total number of participants in the state was 128,378. By June 1974, that number had increased to 138,567. FNS, Statistical Summary of Operations, June 1974. In addition, monthly reports being submitted to the plaintiffs and the court by the defendants indicate that over the past six months the number of food stamp applications of persons who are not receiving public assistance has increased from 3,417 in July 1974 to 4,384 in December 1974, an increase of approximately 28%. During that same period, .the number of applications approved per month has increased from 2,375 in July to 3,106 in December, an increase of approximately 31%. However, as set out in notes 7 and 9, supra, these figures are not a reliable guide to any change in the percentage of eligible persons participating in the food stamp program. On balance, the statistics indicate that there is still an unfortunately large number of eligible households in the state who must still be informed of the availability of food stamp benefits or whose participation in the program must still be insured. “Outreach” Because of their limited conception of their “full participation” program obligations, the defendants have only drafted and implemented a plan to inform low income households of the availability of food stamps. That plan, which will be referred to as “outreach,” is formally set out in an amendment to their State Plan of Operation, submitted to the FNS for approval on September 17, 1973. Under FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6 (V) (1971) the defendants were actually required to have submitted that amendment by January 24, 1972. This one-and-one-half-year delay in even drafting their “outreach” program is perhaps indicative of the low priority accorded it by the state. A reading of that plan, which was approved by the FNS, reveals that the state has failed to satisfy even the formal requirements of FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6. For example, the FNS Instruction requires the state to describe the “methods to be used, on a continuing basis, in monitoring and evaluating the State and local outreach efforts.” FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6(V)(a)(2). The defendants’ outreach program contains no such provision. In addition, Instruction 732-6(V) (B) (1) requires the outreach plan to include: “A timetable by which the State Agency shall develop and put into effect the plans to reach potentially eligible households. Indicate the degree of priority given to such factors as major ethnic groups, senior citizens, migrants, and others who reside in low-income areas where food stamp participation is low.” The section of the state’s plan entitled “Priorities and Timetable” simply does not contain the required information. As set out in the margin, that section is very general and demonstrates a lack of thought and concern for' satisfying the very minimal requirements imposed by the federal instructions. Of course, compliance with the informing or “outreach” element of the federal “full participation” mandate must be measured not only by the extent to which the state “plan” satisfies formal requirements, but also by the degree to which the state has actually engaged in informational activities. From a consideration of the evidence in this case, it has become apparent that the state’s efforts have been deficient. In fact, perhaps the most telling indictment of the program is suggested by the responses of defendant Cecil McCarthy, director of the state food stamp program, to questions posed during the course of a deposition : “Q. So the only real outreach is done on an ad hoc basis whenever an opportunity arises? “A. That’s right. “Q. There’s no . there are no permanent ongoing activities as part of an outreach program ? “A. No.” Deposition of Cecil McCarthy 134 (May 30, 1974). The record in this case amply supports defendant McCarthy’s telling admission. As required by FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6, the defendants in December 1974 submitted to the FNS an annual report detailing the nature, scope and success of their outreach activities during the preceding year. The report contains a listing of all of the private organizations and outside agencies contacted during that year by food stamp program personnel. While beginning at a rather slow pace (only two contacts in November 1973), the number of contacts increased significantly by year’s end (17 contacts in October 1974). A large majority of those contacts were undertaken personally by defendant McCarthy, the only individual whom the state plan indicated would be engaged in outreach activities. While this recent burst of personal activity by defendant McCarthy is impressive, it is clear that the scope of potential outreach activities is far beyond the ability of any one individual to undertake, particularly when that individual is also personally responsible for the general administration of the entire food stamp program. Furthermore, on closer scrutiny it is apparent that some of the contacts listed by the defendants in their annual report bear little or no relationship to “outreach”; the defendants seem to have listed in their report all contacts with outside groups, even those not related to informing eligible households about the food stamp program. In addition, a large number of those contacts were with senior citizens’ organizations with little apparent attention being given to other distinct target groups. While the defendants’ efforts with regard to senior citizens is commendable, FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6 and the clear intent of the statute mandate outreach efforts among all eligible households. Finally, there is no indication in the report as to whether these contacts were initiated by the defendants or by the outside agencies or private organizations. Mr. McCarthy in his deposition testified that he actively seeks the opportunity to speak before such groups. However, substantial documentary evidence, some of it submitted by the defendants, indicates that at least some, if not a good part, of these contacts were not initiated by the defendants. The defendants also seem to have made minimal use of the media in their efforts to inform low-income families of the availability of food stamp benefits. Their annual report reflects this fact and excuses it as follows: “It must be pointed out that while media appearances appear light, the programs where we do appear have very large audience ratings.” Annual Outreach Report, § III at 8. A series of promotional “spots” were allegedly sent to television and radio stations in the state and in their report the defendants stated that “[i]t can be reported that nearly all stations used the material and early re-release is planned.” Id. at 8-9. However, a survey undertaken, with the parties’ approval, of the state’s major television and radio stations, including the only “soul” and Spanish-language stations, revealed little or no public service or news coverage of the food stamp program. In addition, with the exception of one station, the coverage was generally initiated by the station and not the defendants. The fact that some stations have undertaken programming on their own initiative does not satisfy the defendants’ outreach responsibilities, but rather indicates a media reeeptiveness of which the defendants could take advantage. Finally, in terms of the informing element of the “full participation” requirement, the defendants indicate in their report that numerous informational pamphlets have been distributed throughout the state and that employees "in the local welfare offices respond to numerous requests for information about the program. This contention has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. In addition, it appears that the defendants, to a limited extent, have used the services of at least some “other federally funded agencies and organizations,” 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5) (1970), in their “program,” specifically through cooperation with the SSI “Operation Find” project. However, the true extent of the cooperation with this program or others is not indicated by the evidence. “Insurance” The remaining challenges are directed to administrative practices as being unnecessary hindrances to the achievement of the goal of “full participation.” The plaintiffs allege that eligible persons encounter considerable difficulties and delays in applying for food stamp benefits. Primary among these complaints is the delay encountered by persons in making their initial applications. Federal regulations provide that food stamp applications must be processed within 30 days of their receipt by the certification office. Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(3), 40 Fed.Reg. 1890 (1975). It is perfectly clear that “the application may be completed in the certification office or may be submitted by mail.” FNS, The Food Stamp Certification Handbook § 2121 at 13 (1974) (hereinafter referred to as “Handbook”). The defendants accept this policy and, in fact, have issued a directive to district directors containing the following provision: “District Offices will mail or give application forms (WT301) to any household making a written or oral request for one. Such a household shall be told of our willingness to take and process the application at our District Offices or at our scheduled circuit locations to eliminate the d&lay that a mail operation entails. I When a mail application is received in the District Office it shall be immediately examined for signature and address and if these appear, the application shall be clearly and legibly date stamped. “The SO day limitations for this type of application runs from the date of the date stamp and not from the date of the applicant’s signature.” Interdepartment Message, May 3, 1974 (emphasis in original). The plaintiffs argue, however, that although the defendants are willing to mail applications to households, there is no policy directing local certifying officers to inform persons of this service. Rather, they assert, it is the general policy upon inquiry of prospective applicants to schedule an interview for the next date which the welfare office has available, often as long as a month later, at which time the applicant first completes his application. This results, it is alleged, in substantial and discouraging delays because the 30-day period for the processing of applications does not begin to run until the application is actually completed. The plaintiffs claim that applicants should be allowed and encouraged to complete their applications immediately upon inquiring about the program, either through the mail or in the certification office. It is not denied by the defendants that there is currently no written policy issued to welfare workers directing them to offer to mail applications or provide them immediately to persons who walk into the certifying offices. See Deposition of Cecil McCarthy 13 (May 30, 1974). However, it is the defendants’ position that this is the de facto practice. The plaintiffs have shown numerous instances in which applicants were subjected to substantial delay. For example, plaintiff Annie Tyson went to the Bridgeport welfare office to apply for food stamp and AFDC benefits on February 13, 1974, and was prepared at that time to apply for benefits. However, she was told to return two weeks later to begin the application process. She was not informed of her right to start the 30-day processing period running by immediately completing an application. Similarly, plaintiff Ethel Williams telephoned the Manchester District Welfare Office on January 9, 1974, to apply for food stamps and AFDC benefits, but was given an appointment to report to the welfare office on January 29, 1974. She was not informed of the possibility of having the application mailed to her nor told the advantages of such a course of action. In addition to these and other individual instances of delay, the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate through the affidavit of Kevin Ma-honey, Director of Social Services for the Town of Mansfield, that as of mid-October, persons in his town had to wait three to four weeks before being allowed to make application for food stamps. On the basis of this evidence, it appears that although the defendants are willing to supply applications upon request and to permit immediate application, there is no official policy to encourage such early applications. In the absence of a request by the applicant to complete immediately an application either through the mail or in the certifying office, the defendants appear to prefer to delay submission of the application until a required interview can also be scheduled. This, of course, enlarges the time for the defendants to satisfy the 30-day certification requirement. Another of the plaintiffs’ complaints centers around the interview requirement itself. Before an applicant may be certified for food stamp benefits, he or some authorized representative must be interviewed by a certification worker. The purpose for this requirement is set out in Handbook § 2122 at 21: “The purpose of the interview is to establish, to the satisfaction of the EW, that the actual facts of the ease are consistent with the statements on the application concerning household income and circumstances and to establish, subject to subsequent verification, whether or not the household is eligible for food stamp assistance. The only successful method of making such a determination is the use of investigative interview techniques to conduct a thorough and searching inquiry into household circumstances. Merely reviewing the application for completeness is no substitute for the investigative interview.” Federal regulations provide that such an interview may be conducted “in a personal contact in the office, in a home visit, or by a telephone call . . . . ” Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a) (2) (ii), 40 Fed.Reg. 1890 (1975). However, FNS (FS) Instruction 732-1(11) (B) (2) places some restrictions upon the use of telephone interviews. It provides: “Persons who are unable to come into the office to be interviewed may be interviewed in a home visit or by telephone. When it is necessary to interview the applicant by telephone, the reason should be fully documented in the case file. Inconvenience to the applicant will not be sufficient reason for conducting the interview by telephone.” (Emphasis in original) In addition, Handbook § 2122 at 21, adds that “[n]o household shall be interviewed by telephone for any two successive certifications without a face-to-face interview in the office or at home.” The defendants have admittedly adopted a far more restrictive policy than that allowed by the federal regulations and instructions. Telephone interviews are conducted under no circumstances and home interviews are conducted only where the applicant is elderly, housebound and, living alone. Thus, persons like plaintiffs Thomas Burgess or Jayne Pierson, who are unable to travel to certification offices for interviews because of illness or injury, are not interviewed by telephone or at home, even though federal regulations would permit it. Similarly, no provision is made for individuals with pre-school children at home or those living considerable distances from certification offices with no available public or private transportation. The defendants in May 1974 did initiate a “Food Stamp Circuit Rider” system under which a certification worker assigned to a district welfare office conducts interviews in outlying towns on a regularly scheduled basis for anywhere from one-half day to five days a week. While this system certainly does represent a step in the direction of insuring full participation by making the program more accessible to more citizens of the state, it is still not an adequate substitute for those unable to attend interviews even at these circuit riding locations. Moreover, as noted above, there is evidence that this system is currently overburdened and unable in some communities to provide interviews within three or four weeks of an individual’s initial inquiry concerning the program. Inevitably, this means that individuals are being referred to more distant offices with the attendant transportation difficulties which the circuit riding system was designed to avoid. Finally, it does not appear that the harsh impact of the defendants’ refusal to conduct telephone interviews is currently being ameliorated by any effort on the defendants’ part to seek the assistance of outside agencies or organizations to provide transportation for applicants to certification offices. The possibility of such cooperation for this very purpose is even recognized in FNS(FS) Instruction 732-6(IV), but was never acted upon by defendants. C. It is clear from a review of this evidence that the defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of 7 U.S. C. § 2019(e)(5). The'statute in explicit terms requires the state to “undertake effective action ... to inform low-income households concerning the availability and benefits of the food stamp program and insure the participation of eligible households.” 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e)(5). Its purpose is to “safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population” by enabling “low-income households to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet” above the level of hunger and malnutrition. 7 U.S.C. § 2011. Although poverty may once have been considered an inevitable part of the human condition, the modern perspective is that it is a social problem to be eradicated, and the suffering of hunger and malnutrition, with the adverse effect which we know these have upon human health, is the core element of poverty. While perfection in carrying out the program may not be obtainable, and arguments can be made to justify a failure to obtain one hundred per cent participation, perfection is not called for. The statute requires the state to do what can be done. The controlling words in the statute are “effective action.” The allocation of one man to undertake the task of informing the many thousands of eligible families living'' in poverty of the availability of food stamps is tragically inadequate. Viewed in perspective with the federal government’s reimbursement of 50% of the state’s costs, the expense of an adequate program would be insubstantial. If a small fraction of the cost of informing the state’s citizens of the availability and advantage of buying lottery tickets (and insuring their participation in that program) were budgeted for a “full participation” program, the obvious wasting of human resources now theatened would be largely eliminated. To do in the future what has not been done in the past calls for no heavy commitment of the state’s resources. The relative inaction of the past — and furthermore, inaction where action has been mandated — has not been justified. The specific relief this makes necessary will be set forth after the other claims made in this case are considered. Other Claims The plaintiffs’ other claims all involve, with one exception, challenges to the failure of the defendants to comply with FNS regulations or instructions. Those in which relief is appropriate shall be considered first. “Variable Purchase Option” At 7 U.S.C. § 2016(b) (1970) Congress has clearly required participating states to implement a variable purchase option plan which would allow food stamp recipients to purchase a fractional part of their monthly allotment. See Food Stamp. Reg. § 271.6(d)(3), 40 Fed.Reg. 1891 (1975). Pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(s)(v) (1974) (since superseded), each state was required to implement such a plan by June 1, 1972. Not surprisingly, in light of the defendants’ attitudes revealed above, no such plan was implemented in this state until July 1, 1974, more than two years after the deadline established by the federal regulations. Although at the outset of this litigation the plaintiffs challenged the defendants’ failure to implement any variable purchase plan, they now contend that the plan, as implemented, does not satisfy the basic minimal requirements as established by the FNS in FNS(FS) Instruction 734-6 (1971). I agree. Instruction 734-6(IV) & (VI) provides that, at a minimum, the variable, purchase options must be listed on the ATP card itself. For persons receiving monthly cards, options allowing an election of one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters or the full monthly allotment must be listed. For those receiving cards on a semi-monthly basis, each card must list options for one-quarter or one-half of the full monthly allotment. The recipient is to indicate his election of options by signing on the appropriate line on the card. Appended to the Instruction is a sample of the ATP card which the FNS intended the states to employ in implementing the variable purchase option program. The defendants have admittedly adopted a program which does not satisfy the minimal requirements established in Instruction 734-6. Under their plan a food stamp recipient receives an ATP card (or two cards if he is on semimonthly issuance) which does not itself list the purchase options. If he wants to purchase less than the face amount on the ATP card, he may only do so by personally turning in his card at the district welfare office, filling out a form and waiting for receipt of a new ATP card in the mail. Quite obviously the defendants’ plan places substantial burdens upon food stamp beneficiaries which are not involved in the minimal plan mandated by Instruction 734-6. In fact, those extra burdens probably render the variable purchase option unusable in the case of many individuals who are unable to make the frequently substantial journey to a district welfare office. Again, the defendants would seem to have violated not only specific regulatory instructions, but also the Congressional policy underlying the Food Stamp Act. 7 U.S.C. § 2011 (1970). The defendants advance two justifications for their deficient program. First, they point out that the FNS itself has approved their plan. To be sure, Instruction 734-6(IV) (B) (3) provides for FNS approval of an alternative variable purchase option plan. However, that section of the Instruction states : “The State Agency may devise its own forms and instructions, providing the minimum requirements listed in paragraph A, above, are met. The State Agency shall submit these forms and instructions to FNS for review and approval prior to implementation.” Id. (Emphasis added) The minimum requirements of paragraph A are precisely those which the defendants’ plan does not satisfy, namely, the listing of the options on the ATP card and the selection of an option by endorsement on the card itself. Clearly, the FNS, in approving the defendants’ plan, violated its own Instruction 734-6. Its determination of the adequacy of the defendants’ plan is therefore entitled to little or no weight. Secondly, the defendants argue that it would be impractical to implement a plan which satisfied the minimum requirements of Instruction 734-6. Defendant Cecil McCarthy, in an affidavit submitted to this court, averred that ATP cards having multiple options are incompatible with the state’s centralized computer issuing system. Use of such multiple option cards, he urged, mandates “a manual system of accounting and reporting.” Affidavit of Cecil McCarthy (December 6, 1974). In addition, he states that cooperating banks “have no wish to be part of a program that offers this type of option.” Id. He foresees a possible situation in which the state of Connecticut would be left with no banks willing to distribute food stamps to participating households. Although there might be a factual basis for some of the defendants’ concerns, this court finds it difficult to believe that the state of Connecticut lacks the administrative skill and ingenuity to overcome the types of problems which might result from the required implementation of a variable option purchase plan meeting the minimal requirements of Instruction 734-6. In fact, 21 states which, like Connecticut, issue ATP cards from a central computer have already implemented such a program. Such widespread and apparently successful compliance belies the gravity of the defendants’ concerns. I therefore hold that the defendants’ variable option purchase plan does not satisfy the minimum requirements of federal law and they shall be ordered to implement a plan in compliance with FNS(FS) Instruction 734-6. “Immediate Certification for Households with Zero Purchase Requirement” The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are violating both their own and federal food stamp regulations by failing to provide emergency 30-day certification for households whose applications indicate an income so low that they will likely be entitled to full certification with a zero purchase requirement. The federal regulation upon which they rely is Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(2) (iii), 40 Fed.Reg. 1890 (1975) which provides, in part, that “[Certification may be made for 30 days without verification of eligibility factors with respect only to households which report an income so low that they have no purchase requirement and which appear, on the basis of other information furnished, to be eligible for participation.” Connecticut Welfare Reg. FS-300.2(D) essentially echoes the federal regulation. Although the plaintiffs maintain otherwise, it is quite apparent that states need not pursue this policy of emergency certification; § 271.4(a)(2)(iii) clearly uses the permissive “may” in describing the temporary certification procedure. See FNS(FS) Instruction 732-1(IV) (D) (1973); Handbook §§ 2313, 2332.3 at 84, 114. However, as the defendants have at least facially chosen to adopt the policy, it is necessary to consider the plaintiffs’ challenges to the manner in which they are implementing it. First, however, a fuller description of the regulatory context in which the emergency certification procedure operates is appropriate. Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(2), supra, establishes the steps which must be taken by the states in the certification of non-public assistance households for food stamps. Two of these steps have already been discussed, supra: completion of an application for participation and an interview. The third step is covered by subsection 271.4(a) (2) (iii) which basically provides that the state agency must verify the income reported in the application for participation but need only verify other eligibility factors if the application is “unclear, incomplete, or inconsistent . . . . ” That subsection then goes on to deal with the situation of persons who report very low income: “In any case where a household indicates that it has income so low that there is a likelihood that a change must occur in order for the household to continue to subsist as an economic unit, verification of factors necessary to substantiate the facts of eligibility is required unless expenditures and income are so stable as to - indicate that the household could maintain this level of existence for an extended period of time. At least one collateral contact is mandatory in cases of this type. Certification may be made for 30 days without verification of eligibility factors with respect only to households which report an income so low that they have no purchase requirement and which appear, on the basis of other information furnished, to be eligible for participation.” Although this provision is somewhat ambiguous in terms of what it requires of the states in dealing with such households, its meaning has been clarified by FNS(FS) Instruction 732-l(IV)(D) (1973) and various provisions of the Handbook. From these it is clear that households reporting such low income must be subjected to even more rigorous verification than other households prior to certification. For example, Handbook § 2332.1 at 113 details the scope and depth of the interview which must be conducted with such applicants and provides that ordinarily certification in such cases should only be for one-month periods. In addition, Handbook § 2332.4 at 114 provides that such households' “participating at the zero purchase level for 3 consecutive months must be made the subject of a full field investigation, including a home visit, to substantiate continuing eligibility and participation.” Thus, rather than being the objects of special solicitude, the FNS seeks to treat households with zero purchase requirements as objects of suspicion. However, applicants with such low income may be temporarily certified pending verification for a one-month period. Handbook § 2313 at 84 establishes the procedures which must be followed for these optional pre-verification certifications: first, the in-depth interview required under Handbook § 2332.1, supra, must indicate probable eligibility following verification, and secondly, the certifying officer must make at least one collateral contact to confirm information in the application. Furthermore, § 2313 only allows such emergency certification once in every six months for any one household. As noted at the outset, the defendants have adopted a regulation dealing with “Zero Purchase Households” which provides that “preliminary certification pending verification, i. e. certification for 30 days without verification of eligibility factors, may be applied to these households if it appears they will be eligible for participation.” Conn. Welfare Reg. FS-300.2(D) (footnote not in original). Indeed, that policy was recently reiterated in an Interdepartment Message from the Connecticut Deputy Welfare Commissioner to the District Welfare Directors (May 3, 1974) which provided further that: “It is expected that the instructions contained [in the regulation] would be followed exactly and, that a household reporting an income so low or, no income at all, so that there would be no purchase requirement, would be certified for participation for a 30 day period if all other prerequisites appear to be met.” (Emphasis in original) Despite these statements and provisions, the plaintiffs maintain that the defendants’ administration of this policy is deficient in several respects. Their first claim appears to be that all applicants who on the face of their application would be eligible for a zero purchase requirement must receive the 30-day preliminary certification. This claim is clearly negated by Handbook § 2313, supra, which provides that before preliminary certification at least one eollateral contact must be made by the certification worker and that all other eligibility requirements, such as work registration for all employable members of the household, see Food Stamp Reg. § 271.3(d), 40 Fed.Reg. 1889 (1975), must be apparently satisfied. Their second complex of claims is more substantial. Basically, they maintain that despite Conn. Welfare Reg. FS-300.2(D) most applicants who would be eligible for 30-day preliminary certification are, in fact, not being considered for it. This, they maintain, is the result of the lack of a true affirmative policy by the defendants to insure that all those who are eligible are actually considered. Rather, it appears that such applications are considered and processed in the same manner as all other applications with the exception of those which the local certification officers might single out as special hardship cases. Thus, the local workers would seem to construe the permissive language in the State welfare regulation as providing them with the discretion to consider low income households for preliminary certification, but not mandating that they consider all such households to determine their eligibility. Moreover, plaintiffs maintain that even those few who are approved for emergency certification do not receive their ATP’s immediately. Forms are filled out, processed and forwarded to the central office for issuance of the ATP cards just as in the case of regular certifications. The whole process may take longer than a week, thus negating the very purpose of the preliminary certification process, to wit, the provision of immediate relief to the very poor. The plaintiffs’ claim is supported by the testimony of defendant Cecil McCarthy. In his deposition of May 30, 1974, Mr. McCarthy confirmed that delays of a week or more were normal in the issuance of ATP cards for persons with a zero purchase requirement on a 30-day preliminary certification. Furthermore, he also confirmed that there was no directive to district offices requiring them to process such applications in any way differently from regular applications. Only in the case of severe hardship, he stated, might a certification worker be inclined to push through a zero purchase certification as quickly as possible. The record with regard to this issue is admittedly sparse. Nonetheless, on the basis of Mr. McCarthy’s own testimony I conclude that the defendants are not now operating a program of preliminary 30-day certifications which insures that all households with very low incomes are given the same consideration for such emergency certification and immediate receipt of their ATP’s. Having elected under Food Stamp Reg. § 271.-4(a) (2) (iii) to provide 30-day emergency certifications, the defendants are bound to operate the program in a non-arbitrary manner so as to insure equal treatment for all similarly situated low income households. Furthermore, the decision to provide preliminary certifications carries with it an obligation to insure that eligible households encounter no delays in receiving their ATP cards. Under FNS(FS) Instruction 734-2(VI)(C) (1969) the defendants are obliged to provide ATP’s immediately for newly •certified households in immediate need. By definition, households with a zero purchase requirement are in that category. The same provision states that such emergency ATP cards may be issued either by the' district offices or by the central office, “provided that there are no delays in allowing the household to participate.” Id. The admitted delay of one week or more from the date of approval in the district office to the issuance of the ATP by the defendants’ central office does not satisfy the strict standard of FNS(FS) Instruction 734-2 (VI) (C). The defendants will therefore be required to implement a plan insuring that all zero purchase households will be considered equally and expeditiously for 30-day preliminary certification under the conditions of Handbook § 2313, supra, and that once approved for such certification, the household will receive its ATP card as expeditiously as possible. If the immediate issuance of the ATP card cannot be guaranteed through the current system of central issuance, then the defendants will have to make provision for the issuance of the emergency ATP cards at the district office level. “Immediate Certification of Households on General Assistance” The plaintiffs also challenge the failure of the defendants to provide immediate certification for applicants receiving non-federally funded welfare benefits under the general assistance program administered by the towns in Connecticut. See Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 17-273 et seq. (Supp.1974). Their claim essentially rests upon two arguments. First, they assert that the Connecticut general assistance program satisfies the FNS criteria for determining whether general assistance recipients may have their applications for food stamps processed under the more expeditious procedure provided by Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(1), supra. Secondly, they argue that the more expeditious procedure mandates immediate certification upon submission by the applicant of an affidavit. For reasons that will appear, the second of these arguments will be considered first. The food stamp regulations establish two independent procedures for the certification of food stamp applications. One such procedure, set out at Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(2), supra, has already been discussed above in connection with the certification of zero purchase households. That procedure is employed in the processing of the applications of households who are not receiving public assistance; currently, households receiving general assistance in this state fall into that category. The second procedure is employed in the processing of the applications of households receiving aid under federally aided public assistance programs or general assistance programs satisfying FNS criteria. That procedure is set out at Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(1) which provides: “The State, agency shall provide for the certification of households in which all members are included in a federally aided public assistance or general assistance grant, solely on the basis of information contained in an affidavit and the assistance case file.” In addition, a further distinction is made between these two categories of applicants in terms of the income eligibility criteria which must be applied to them: “Households in which all members are included in a federally aided public assistance or general assistance grant shall, if otherwise eligiblé under this subchapter, be determined to be eligible to participate in the program while receiving such grants without regard to the income and resources of the household members.” Food Stamp Reg. § 271.3(b), 40 Fed. 1888 (1975). The plaintiffs read into the regulations a further distinction between these two categories of applicants. They argue that because a certification determination can be made solely on the basis of the applicant’s affidavit and the assistance case file, that such a determination can be made quickly and in fact, must be made immediately upon submission of the affidavit. Their contention is, however, not supported by a fair reading of the federal regulations. The only provision in the regulations for immediate certification is Food Stamp .Reg. § 271.4(a)(2) (iii), supra, discussed above in connection with zero purchase households. Otherwise, the only reference to time limitations for the processing of applications is that contained in Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(3), 40 Fed.Reg. 1890 (1975) which provides in relevant part: “The State agency shall provide for the processing of each affidavit or Application for Participation and notify the applicant household of the action taken within reasonable State-established time standards, which shall not exceed 30 days after receipt of such documents.” (Emphasis added) Under Food Stamp Reg. § 270.2(a), 40 Fed.Reg. 1882 (1975), the term “affidavit” is defined as being the signed statement of application submitted by the head of a household, or his representative, all of whose members are receiving federally aided public assistance or state general assistance. Thus, FNS clearly contemplated that the states would have the same 30 days in which to process those applications as they have for nonpublic assistance applications. This conclusion, however, does not render it unnecessary to consider the plaintiffs’ claim that general assistance households in Connecticut should be treated under the simplified procedure of Food Stamp Reg. § 271.4(a)(1). Al-though couched in terms of entitlement to immediate certification, their claim can be construed more liberally to be that general assistance households are entitled to treatment under § 271.-4(a)(1) because the procedure provided thereunder is less burdensome and will likely result in faster certification determinations. In fact, there is no doubt that general assistance households would benefit greatly were their applications processed under § 271.4(a)(1) as opposed to § 271.4(a)(2). First, the defendants would not have to conduct an interview prior to certification. Handbook § 2117 at 12 provides that “[t]he interview of PA households shall be satisfied by the interview conducted in connection with their certification for public assistance.” Secondly, as noted above, the defendants would not have to independently verify the income figures reported in the applicant’s affidavit. They could confirm such information by reference to the general assistance case file which could either be made physically available to them by the town welfare officials or information from which could be provided by telephone contact. There is little doubt that this procedure would be less burdensome to both the plaintiffs and the defendants and would likely result in the plaintiffs receiving food stamp benefits more quickly than under current procedures. The plaintiffs claim that Connecticut’s general assistance program satisfies the criteria of Food Stamp Reg. § 270.2(ee), 40 Fed.Reg. 1883 (1975) and FNS(FS) Instruction 732-5, and thus applicant households, all of whose members are receiving general assistance, should be certified pursuant to the provisions of § 271.4(a)(1). Food Stamp Reg. § 270.-2(ee) essentially provides that the FNS shall determine which general assistance programs may be equated with federally aided public assistance programs for the purposes of § 271.4(a)(1). Generally, the standard to be applied is whether the general assistance program applies the same or similar “criteria of need” as that applied under any of the federally aided assistance programs. FNS(FS) Instruction 732-5 refines the standard of § 270.2(ee) by establishing specific criteria which must be satisfied by the general assistance program. There are seven criteria of which the program must satisfy one of the first four and all of the final three.' The plaintiffs concede that Connecticut’s general assistance program does not satisfy any of the first three standards; it is their contention that the program does meet the fourth and the final three, all of which are set out in the margin. There is really no dispute among the parties that the fourth criteria has been satisfied. Under controlling Connecticut law, see Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 17-273 (Supp.1974), the local towns must administer a general assistance program, subject to 90% reimbursement from the state. Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 17-292 (Supp.1974). It is also clear that food stamp certifi