Detailed Information on the
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) Assessment

Improve monitoring of TEFAP State plan changes in light of Farm Bill provision to make plans permanent.

Assess feasibility and cost-effectiveness of increased oversight of/information information collection on TEFAP grantee activities

Developing annual and long-term performance measures, and a plan for establishing baselines and targets, by June 30, 2006.

Developing and implementing a plan for more comprehensive and periodic review of program management, by October 1, 2006.

Measure: Total value of food (entitlement-funded and bonus) provided to low-income people through TEFAP

Explanation:

Measure: Prevalence of food insecurity with hunger among households with income at or below 130% of poverty

Explanation:

Measure: Change in the Cost of TEFAP Entitlement Foods Relative to the Change in the Producer Price Index

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, provides that USDA shall make available for food assistance commodities that are in excess of domestic and international obligations to "complement the domestic nutrition programs, make maximum use of the Nation's agricultural abundance, and expand and improve the domestic distribution of price-supported commodities . . ." TEFAP distributes foods purchased by the Federal government under agricultural support programs, and additional nutritious and useful commodities purchased by the Federal government for emergency feeding organizations which relieve situations of emergency distress through the provision of food to needy persons.

Evidence: 'The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, Public Law 98-8, 7 USC 7501 et seq. Sec. 201A(4); Sec. 202(a), and 213(b).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: USDA classified 5.9 million low-income households as food insecure in 2003 and, of these, 2.1 million low-income households as food insecure with hunger, based on national survey data collected by the Census Bureau. A 2002 study found that 4.3 million households received food from food pantries on average each month and about 1.1 million people received meals from emergency kitchens during the same timeframe. At the same time, TEFAP makes efficient use of agriculture surpluses that would otherwise be wasted.

Evidence: USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report Number 42. Household Food Security in the United States, 2003; USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Research Report Number 16, The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Provider Survey, 2002; In 2004, TEFAP distributed $233 million in commodities purchased under farm surplus and price support programs.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Local emergency food organizations distribute both privately-donated as well as TEFAP commodities. However, while the aggregate level of need for emergency food assistance cannot be quantified rigorously, there is some evidence that the need exceeds supply. 40% of food pantries report limiting the quantity of food distributed to participants, and more than half of food banks and food rescue organizations report unmet needs. From time to time, participants in other Federal nutrition programs such as Food Stamps or WIC may have insufficient resources to meet their nutritional needs and may turn to TEFAP to supplement their diets. Other individuals may not qualify for these other programs or may decline to participate for various reasons. Finally, TEFAP distributes commodities that may not be accepted in programs with specific needs based on planned menus

Evidence: USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Research Report Number 16, The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Provider Survey, 2002; In 2000, local emergancy food assistance programs distributed approximately 2.9 billion pounds of food annually, while TEFAP provided approximately 422 million pounds of commodities.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The local organizations that receive TEFAP administrative funds and commodities were generally in operation prior to the initiation of TEFAP. In addition, TEFAP administrative funds can be used to support the distribution of non-Federal commodities. Thus, the program leverages an existing infrastructure to maximize the efficient distribution of Federal commodities. TEFAP also takes advantage of the Federal government's ability to purchase commodity foods at low cost relative to commercial sources and relies extensively on volunteers, thereby maintaining lower administrative costs.

Evidence: USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Research Report Number 16, The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Provider Survey, 2002.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: TEFAP commodities and administrative funds are allocated to States based on poverty and unemployment, thus targeting Federal resources to States with greatest need. States are required to maintain the State's previous level of support provided to local emergency feeding organizations to prevent supplantation of state funds. TEFAP participants must meet eligibility criteria defined by each State. While most agencies do not verify the income eligibility of participants, a 2002 study indicated that 93 percent of pantry client households and 86 percent of kitchen-client households have mean monthly incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level in the month before their EFAS visit. Almost one-third of pantry-client households and 40 percent of kitchen-client households are at or below 50 percent of the poverty level.

Evidence: Sections 204 and 214(a) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, 7 USC 7515(a), require that administrative funds and commodities be allocated among the States by a resource allocation formula that takes into account poverty and unemployment; Section 214(d), 7 USD 7515(d), establishes the requirement that States maintain previous levels of support; USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Research Report Number 16, The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Provider Survey, 2002.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: TEFAP has no long-term performance measures. USDA has two long-term nutrition goals: to reduce the prevalence of hunger among low-income households and to increase the Healthy Eating Index (a measure of dietary quality) for low-income individuals and children. However, FNS does not collect data to track TEFAP's contribution to these goals.

Evidence: USDA Strategic Plan 2002-2007.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: TEFAP has no long-term performance measures. For its cross-cutting measures. USDA seeks to reduce the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger among low-income households to 7.4% by 2007 (from 10.9% in 2000) and to increase the HEI for children and low-income people from 61 (out of a possible 100) in 1996 to 66 in 2007.

Evidence: USDA Strategic Plan 2002-2007.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: TEFAP has no annual performance measures.

Evidence:  

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: TEFAP has no annual performance measures.

Evidence:  

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: TEFAP has no annual nor long-term performance measures.

Evidence:  

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: A congressionally-mandated evaluation of TEFAP was published in 1987. A few other independent studies have been conducted; however, these have generally focused on characteristics of people who are likely to participate in the program.

Evidence: USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, Number 19-3, Chapter 9, 2002; Ohls, J., and F. Saleem-Ismail. 2002. The Emergency Food Assistance System--Findings From the Provider Survey. Volume I: Executive Summary. FANRR-16-1. USDA. Economic Research Service; A Study of the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Prepared by Quality Planning Corporation and Abel, Daft and Earley for the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. April, 1987.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: 'FNS' budget request displays resources for TEFAP and other programs in alignment with long-term USDA strategic goals, and fully accounts for all resources by providing full cost by strategic goal which includes all administrative and overhead expenses allocated to program accounts. It shows the value and amount of each type of commodity distributed through the program. However, the budget does not explicitly tie the TEFAP budget request to the accomplishment of or improvement in annual or long-term performance goals.

Evidence: FNS 2005 and FNS 2006 budget submissions to OMB.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: TEFAP does not have plans or a timetable for adopting specific, ambitious annual or long-term performance measures.

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: State agencies report financial data on a quarterly and annual basis. USDA also monitors inventory reports to ensure donated commodities are being used without waste. However, USDA has not set performance goals against which it tracks grantee performance. TEFAP is infrequently the focus of State management evaluations or financial management reviews.

Evidence: 7 CFR 251.10(a) establishes the record keeping requirements for the program. 7 CFR 251.10(d) establishes the reporting requirements under Section 210(b) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: TEFAP Federal managers are required to have their performance plans aligned with USDA strategic goals and FNS priorities. Performance plans explicitly tie manager's responsibilities to accomplishment of this designated priority work, and related strategic and annual goals. Commodity vendors are held accountable for compliance with procurement contracts. State agencies are responsible for proper storage, handling, and disposition of commodities. Regulatory requirements for State/local agreements, in turn, apply these responsibilities to the local level. In addition, State agencies are required to submit a distribution plan detailing their compliance with program requirements. USDA monitors State financial reports to ensure States use program resources in accordance with program requirements. USDA also monitors inventory reports to ensure donated commodities are being used without waste.

Evidence: Performance Plan, Progress Review and Appraisal Worksheet for the Associate Deputy Administrator, FNS Special Nutrition Programs; 7 CFR 250.12, 250.13, 250.14, 250.16, 250.17, 250.20, and 250.24 of Food Distribution Program regulations, FNS Instruction 410-1 (Non-Audit Claims, Food Distribution Program); FNS Instructions 433-1 (Intra-Agency Commodity Reconciliation); FNS Instruction 709-5 (Shipment and Receipt of Foods); and FNS Instruction 710-1 (Commodities Found Out-of-Condition After Receipt by Distribution Agencies).

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated appropriately and consistently for their intended purpose within a timely manner.

Evidence: SF-133, Report on Budget Execution and Budget Resources; Financial Status Report (SF-269)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: TEFAP commodity procurements are conducted competitively to control costs. Examples of strategies to increase efficiency and effectiveness include the shift to purchase of commodities in commercial labels, and to long-term indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting for some products. However, TEFAP has no efficiency measure with baseline and targets.

Evidence: Copies of procurement documents are available from FNS' commodity procurement agents, the Agricultural Marketing Service (fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry, fish) and the Farm Service Agency (dairy, grains, oils).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: State agencies work with and through the existing emergency food assistance network. These programs often deliver food provided both from private and from USDA sources, supporting co-mingling of Federal and private benefits to reach recipients in a single location. In some states, Commodity Supplemental Food Program commodities are distributed through TEFAP outlets, thus eliminating potential duplication of facilities and reducing costs. However, the 2002 study of emergency food assistance programs (Federal and non-Federal) found that ony 16 percent of emergency kitchens and 17 percent of food pantries reported providing counseling regarding Food Stamp or WIC eligibility.

Evidence: USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Research Report Number 16, The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Provider Survey, 2002; Provided by USDA: List of America's Second Harvest Member Food Banks that distribute both TEFAP and CSFP commodities.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: States report financial data on a quarterly and annual basis, and USDA monitors these reports to ensure States are using program resources in accordance with program requirements. USDA monitors these reports to ensure State agencies are passing through at least 40 percent of the administrative funds allocated to each state, and to ensure State agencies are meeting the state match requirements. In recent years, USDA has conducted financial management reviews of TEFAP in 5-7 states per year to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial information reported by State agencies is correct and complete. No major national problems were identified in these reviews

Evidence: FNS Financial Management Review (FMR) Guide

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has made some changes to address management deficiencies over the years. For example, written guidance is now under development for regional office staff to use when conducting management evaluations. However, major areas of program management remain deficient, including lack of sufficient oversight over grantees and lack of an efficiency measure. TEFAP does not have a routine system for identifying and correcting program management deficiencies in a timely manner.

Evidence: Draft TEFAP Management Evaluation Guide.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: USDA monitors State agency activity through inventory reports, financial reports, and commodity reports. However, Federal on-site reviews of TEFAP are relatively infrequent. USDA conducts management evaluations and financial management reviews in all States every 3 to 5 years. However, TEFAP may not be a significant focus of the review, or not included in the review at all. State agencies are required to monitor the performance of local organizations to ensure compliance with program regulations.

Evidence: FNS Financial Management Review (FMR) Guide; Management Evaluation and Reviews. 7 CFR 251.10(e) establishes the requirements for the State monitoring system.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: USDA does not collect detailed grantee performance data other than the financial data collected to ensure proper use of administrative funds, and the inventory data collected to ensure proper use of the commodities provided.

Evidence: 7 CFR 251.10(a) establishes the recordkeeping requirements for the program. 7 CFR 251.10(d) establishes the reporting requirements.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: TEFAP has no long-term performance measures. Regarding USDA's cross-cutting nutrition goals, the most recently available data indicates: (1) Rising unemployment and increased poverty contributed to an increase in the rate of hunger among low-income people between 2000 and 2002, with some improvement in 2003; (2) there was no change in the Healthy Eating Index scores between 1996 and 1999-2000.

Evidence: Nord, M., and M. Andrews (2002) Reducing Food Insecurity in the United States: Assessing Progress Toward a National Objective. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Basiotis, P., A. Carlson, S. Gerrior, W.Y. Juan, and M. Lino (2002). The Healthy Eating Index: 1999-2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center on Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: TEFAP has no annual performance measures.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: TEFAP has no annual efficiency or cost effectiveness measures.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: TEFAP can generally more flexibly meet the emergency needs of low-income individuals than other Federal nutrition programs, and reach a broader population. Local agencies usually allow participants to self-attest that they are income-eligible, and typically extend eligibility to individuals regardless of their immigration or employment status. As a means to distribute agricultural surpluses, TEFAP is more flexible in the food that it can use than the other household commodity programs, as well as the institutional commodity programs. No information is available to compare the availability or nutritional quality of foods served through TEFAP with non-Federally donated commodities.

Evidence: Ohls, J. and F. Saleem-Ismail. 2002. The Emergency Food Assistance System--Findings from the Provider Survey. Volume I: Executive Summary. FANRR-16-1. USDA. Economic Research Service; Policy Memorandum FD-036 - Local-Level Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements." See page 2 for the ability to self-attest.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: To date, there has been no evaluation of TEFAP's impact on nutrition and health-related outcomes. This is due to a number of factors, including the fact that the assistance it provides is a response to short-term emergency needs, and recipients of TEFAP foods typically also receive food assistance from other sources. The specific effects of TEFAP are thus difficult to isolate.

Evidence: USDA-ERS, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, Number 19-3, Chapter 9; Ohls, J., and F. Saleem-Ismail. 2002. The Emergency Food Assistance System--Findings From the Provider Survey. Volume I: Executive Summary. FANRR-16-1. USDA. Economic Research Service.