Nutrition
Evaluations Report
V. PROGRAM FUNDING, COSTS, AND EFFICIENCY
B. PROGRAM FUNDING
ENP meals and services are supported through a diverse system
of funding sources. In addition to Title III monies, sources of
program support include other federal funds, state and local funds,
participant contributions, and private funding. To the degree
that program managers can leverage Title III funds with resources
from these other funding sources, this creates opportunities to
provide more meals and support services. This section examines
these sources.
1. Methodology
Any attempt to obtain complete, direct information on the sources
of funding used by the several layers of program administration
in the ENP faces formidable challenges. Many ENP providers operate
as relatively small organizations. Furthermore, key ENP staff
in many of these organizations tend to come from service-oriented
backgrounds, and many prefer to focus on operational issues rather
than on financial systems. The types and sophistication of accounting
systems vary greatly across projects, and often the same cost
and funding terms are used with somewhat different meanings in
different ENP contexts. Because of these and similar factors,
only on-site audits of a sample of agencies at each level would
provide reasonably complete and consistent organization-level
financial information about the ENP organizations. This was well
beyond the scope of the project or the resources available for
it.
In light of these issues, we have adopted a compromise research
strategy that focuses on average funding levels across organizations,
and draws selectively on data from the Administration on Aging
(AoA), data from the Nutrition Project survey, and data from the
cost survey discussed in Section A. Our analysis focuses on the
costs of providing program meals, both because the bulk of program
resources are spent on this service area and the most information
is available on this service area. Information about Title III
funding per meal is taken from AoA administrative data, information
about levels of participant donations is taken from data obtained
in the Nutrition Project survey, and information about the overall
level of costs is taken from the Project Cost survey. State and
local contributions, combined with private donations, are computed
as a residual.
2. Findings on Leveraging Title III Funds
Table V.12 summarizes the sources of funding for Title III congregate
and home-delivered meals. It shows, for instance, that when only
monetary costs of the meals are considered, Title III-C funds
account for approximately 43 percent of the total costs of congregate
meals and 26 percent of the total cost of home-delivered meals.
When nonmonetary support, such as volunteer labor and in-kind
contributions are considered in the base, these numbers drop to
37 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Despite participants'
low income levels, their contributions account for 20 percent
of both congregate and home-delivered meal costs. Other major
resources for the program include the USDA cash in lieu of commodities
program and state, local, and private funds.
TABLE V.12 SOURCES OF ENP FUNDING PER MEAL (In Dollars)
|
Title
III
Congregate
Meals
| Title
III
Home-Delivered
Meals
|
Monetary Costs
|
|
|
1.Title III-C1 (Funds for
Congregate Meal Services)
| $1.93 (43%)
| --
|
2.Title III-C2 (Funds for
Home-Delivered Meal Services)
| --
| $1.21 (26%)
|
3.Cash in Lieu of Commodities
| .59 (13%)
| .59 (13%)
|
4.Commodities
| --
| --
|
5.Participant Contributions
| $1.06 (24%)
| $1.07 (23%)
|
6.State, Local, and Private
Funds
| .88 (20%)
| 1.70 (38%)
|
7.Volunteer Labor
| NA
| NA
|
8.Other Local In-Kind Contributions
| NA
| NA
|
9.Total
| $4.46 (100%)
| $4.57 (100%)
|
All Costs
|
|
|
1.Title III-C1 (Funds for
Congregate Meal Services)
| $1.93 (37%)
| --
|
2.Title III-C2 (Funds for
Home-Delivered Meal Services)
| --
| $1.21 (23%)
|
3.Cash in Lieu of Commodities
| .59 (11%)
| .59 (11%)
|
4.Commodities
| .04 (1%)
| .06 (1%)
|
5.Participant Contributions
| $1.06 (20%)
| $1.07 (20%)
|
6.State, Local, and Private
Funds
| .88 (17%)
| 1.70 (33%)
|
7.Volunteer Labor
| .43 (8%)
| .47 (9%)
|
8.Other Local In-Kind Contributions
| .24 (5%)
| .21 (4%)
|
9.Total
| $5.17 (100%)
| $5.31 (100%)
|
Notes: Lines 1 and 2: Entries are based on fiscal year 1993 data. They are based on dividing data on expenditures in Figure 1 of AoAs "National Summary of Program Activities" by the "units of service" data in the same figure. It should be noted that this focuses the analysis on meal costs and excludes certain related services, such as nutrition education.
Lines 3 and 4: In fiscal year 1993, the USDA basic reimbursement was 62.1 cents per meal, based on the 2/28/95 General Accounting Office survey of domestic food programs, p. 28. Based on p. 27 of that document, a proportion--(6.1/146.0) of that 62.1 cents was commodities, and the rest was cash in lieu of commodities. In addition, p. 27 indicates there were $1.2 million of bonus commodities, which, divided by 229 million meals, yields, after rounding, a penny per meal added to commodities.
Line 5: Based on project survey data.
Line 6: State, local, and private funds. Computed as a residual from the total and the other lines.
Lines 7 and 8: Based on data from the project cost survey.
Line 9: Based on data from the project cost survey.
NA = Not applicable.
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.
GAO = General Accounting Office.
These findings imply considerable leveraging of Title III-C funds
in operating the ENP. For instance, the data cited here on total
costs for congregate meals imply that there are $2.70 of congregate
meal expenditures for every $1.00 of Title III funds. [ Table
V.12 shows that Title III-C1 funds are 37 percent of total congregate
meal costs. If 37 cents of Title III-C1 yields $1.00 of expenditures,
then $1.00 of Title III-C1 expenditures yields ($1.00 รท 0.37)
or $2.70 of total expenditures.] Thus, a dollar of Title III-C
money is leveraged with $1.70
of other funding. [ It should be noted that the leverage rates
are somewhat lower when all federal funds, including USDA funding,
rather than just Title III-C funds, are counted in the computations.
Even when this is done, however, the rates are substantial.] The
comparable rate for home-delivered meals is $4.35 of total expenditures
for every $1.00 of Title III-C funds (that is, $1.00 of Title
III funding is supplemented with $3.35 from other sources). In
part, the high leveraging rates reflect the fact that, by law,
states are required to supply resources to match the federal contribution.
One interesting aspect of the results in the table is that they
show the average federal Title III-C contribution to a congregate
meal is considerably higher than the average Title III-C contribution
to a home-delivered meal. This fact does not result from
our methodology but rather is directly apparent in the AoA "National
Summary of Program Activities," fiscal year 1992, from which
these numbers are taken. [ The difference in average contributions
is not just an artifact of these AoA numbers. A similar result
is obtained by dividing total Title III-C1 and Title III-C2 funding
by the congregate and home-delivered national mean counts, respectively.]
Two possible explanations for this include the following: (1)
Projects may find it easier to raise external funds for the home-delivered
program, since the need for this program may be more apparent
to potential donors, and (2) nutrition projects may be attempting
to increase the numbers of home-delivered meals they can supply
by subsidizing these meals out of their own fundraising relatively
more heavily than they subsidize the congregate meals (though
as shown in the table, there are considerable state and local
subsidies for both kinds of meals).
3. Participant Contributions
One aspect of program revenues that has received attention in
past discussions about ENP funding is participant donations. Under
current law, nutrition projects can encourage participants to
contribute to the cost of the meals served, but they cannot require
payment as a condition for receiving the meal. As wehave seen,
participant contributions represent a significant component (20
percent) of overall project revenues.
Some analysts have argued that strengthening contribution requirements
could further increase this revenue source, allowing the program
to serve more people. Other observers are concerned that the current
policy may inhibit participation in the program and that strengthening
contribution requirements would only exacerbate this situation.
To examine the extent of current donations, we asked nutrition
project staff whether they suggested or received donations from
either congregate or home-delivered meal participants.
Table V.13 indicates that virtually all projects receive donations.
About 90 percent suggest donations, which range from one to two
dollars in about 70 percent of projects for each type of meal
service. Donations for home-delivered meals are usually slightly
higher, presumably to defray transportation costs. Average contributions
for each type of meal service are nearly identical, at about $1.06
per meal. Actual donations are slightly less, on average, than
suggested amounts.
TABLE V.13 TITLE III PROJECT-REPORTED PARTICIPANT MEAL CONTRIBUTIONS
(Percentages, Unless Stated Otherwise)
Donation System
Characteristic
| Title III
Congregate Meal
| Title III
Home-Delivered Meal
|
Projects Receiving Donations
| 99
| 99
|
Projects Suggesting Donation
| 92
| 93
|
If Donation Suggested, Percentage
with Suggested Amount
|
|
|
Less than $.50
| 3
| 4
|
$.50
| 11
| 6
|
$.75
| 8
| 6
|
$1.00
| 16
| 19
|
$1.01 to $1.50
| 35
| 25
|
$1.51 to $2.00
| 22
| 26
|
More than $2.00
| 6
| 15
|
Average Contribution (In
Dollars)
| 1.06
| 1.07
|
Unweighted Sample Size
| 230
| 206
|
Source: Elderly Nutrition Evaluation, Nutrition Project survey, weighted tabulations.
Information on participant contributions from the participant
survey indicates that 94 percent of Title III congregate participants
and 73 percent of home-delivered meal participants typically make
a contribution for the program meals they receive (Chapter II,
Table II.15). The majority of participants who usually make contributions
reported that the suggested amount was "about right."
Only approximately 10 percent of participants who usually make
contributions reported that the suggested amount was "too
low." The likelihood of making a contribution is related
to household income, as participants with incomes below the DHHS
poverty threshold, especially home-delivered participants, are
less likely to contribute than participants whose income is above
the poverty level. [ For home-delivered meals, contribution behavior
by poverty status is as follows. For participants with incomes
below 100 percent of the DHHS poverty threshold, 65 percent usually
contribute; for participants with incomes between 100 percent
and 200 percent of the DHHS poverty threshold, 78 percent usually
contribute; and 96 percent of participants with incomes greater
than 200 percent of the DHHS poverty threshold usually contribute.
For home-delivered participants, the mean dollar amounts usually
contributed per meal (calculated for all home-delivered participants)
are $1.37, $1.43, and $2.13, respectively, for participants with
incomes below 100 percent, between 100 percent and 200 percent,
and above 200 percent of the DHHS poverty threshold. A similar,
although less striking, pattern exists for congregate participants.
Ninety percent of congregate participants with incomes below 100
percent of the DHHS poverty threshold typically contribute, compared
with 94 percent of participants with incomes above 200 percent
of the poverty threshold. For congregate participants, the mean
dollar amounts usually contributed per meal (calculated for all
congregate participants) are $0.99, $1.23, and $1.39, respectively,
for those with incomes below 100 percent, between 100 percent
and 200 percent, and above 200 percent of the poverty threshold.]
Presumably, many of the participants who are not making contributions
do not do so because of their low incomes.
While not conclusive, the fact that most Title III meal program
participants are poor or near poor, and that the majority believe
the suggested contribution is either about right or too high,
suggests that a mandatory cost-sharing policy would discourage
participation, especially by low-income older persons.
Last Modified: 1/15/2009 11:05:58 AM |
|