[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF USDA NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION
PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, OVERSIGHT, AND
DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 8, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-24
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-783 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Northern Mariana Islands DON BACON, Nebraska
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands CHRIS JACOBS, New York
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
RO KHANNA, California TRACEY MANN, Kansas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
J. LUIS CORREA, California MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota BARRY MOORE, Alabama
JOSH HARDER, California KAT CAMMACK, Florida
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JIMMY PANETTA, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut, Chairwoman
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts DON BACON, Nebraska, Ranking
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina Minority Member
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, Arkansas
Northern Mariana Islands SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire CHRIS JACOBS, New York
JIMMY PANETTA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
Katherine Stewart, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, submitted articles................................... 41
Bacon, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Submitted report............................................. 54
Submitted statement on behalf of Metz Culinary Management,
Inc........................................................ 66
Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from
Connecticut, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Panetta, Hon. Jimmy, a Representative in Congress from
California, submitted letter................................... 53
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 4
Witnesses
Rodriguez, Carlos M., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Community FoodBank of New Jersey, Hillside, NJ................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted questions.......................................... 67
Greene Trottier, Mary, President, National Association of Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations; Director of Food
Distribution Programs, Spirit Lake Tribe, Fort Totten, ND...... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Kubik, Frank, Director of the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, Focus: HOPE; Member, Board of Directors, National
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, Detroit, MI... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Donaldson, Dave, Co-Founder and Chairman, CityServe
International, Bakersfield, CA................................. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
REVIEW OF USDA NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department
Operations,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jahana
Hayes [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hayes, McGovern, Adams,
Rush, Carbajal, Kuster, Panetta, Brown, Bacon, Crawford, Baird,
Cloud, Letlow, Thompson (ex officio), and Mann.
Staff present: Caitlin Balagula, Chu-Yuan Hwang, Katherine
Stewart, Ricki Schroeder, Jennifer Tiller, Erin Wilson, and
Dana Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAHANA HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CONNECTICUT
The Chairwoman. Good morning. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations
entitled, Review of USDA Nutrition Distribution Programs, will
come to order. Welcome, and thank you all for joining us here
today.
After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony
from our witnesses today, and then the hearing will be open for
questions. Members will be recognized in order of seniority,
alternating between Majority and Minority Members and in order
of arrival for those Members who have joined us after the
hearing was called to order. When you are recognized, you will
be asked to unmute your microphone and will have 5 minutes to
ask your questions or make a comment. If you are not speaking,
I ask that you remain muted in order to minimize background
noise. In order to get as many questions as possible, the timer
will stay consistently visible on your screen. In consultation
with the Ranking Member and pursuant to Rule XI(e), I want to
make Members of the Subcommittee aware that other Members of
the full Committee may join us today.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for joining us today. I
appreciate you taking the time out of your schedules to provide
us with your expertise. I look forward to your testimony and to
a productive conversation about USDA Food and Nutrition
Service's nutrition distribution programs: The Emergency Food
Assistance Program, ``TEFAP,'' Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, ``CSFP,'' and Food Distribution Programs on Indian
Reservations, ``FDPIR.'' I would also like to offer a warm
welcome to our newest Agriculture Committee Member,
Representative Shontel Brown from Ohio's 11th District. We are
excited to have you join us today for your first Committee
hearing.
Today, we will explore the implementation of these
important programs, the adjustments made during the COVID-19
pandemic, and the long-term need of these programs and the
organizations that operate them.
TEFAP, CSFP, and FDPIR support millions of Americans in
need each year. These programs purchase American-grown
commodities for distribution to food banks, Tribal
organizations, and other eligible community-based organizations
supporting individuals experiencing food insecurity, serving
both to combat hunger and support America's farmers.
Throughout the pandemic, as many of us saw firsthand in our
communities, these programs have shown great resiliency. They
have responded to unprecedented challenges and adjusted quickly
to continue delivering food safely to those in need. USDA's
Economic Research Service found that in 2020, 6.7 percent of
U.S. households reported using a food pantry, an increase from
4.4 percent in 2019. Further, TEFAP supplied 2.2 billion pounds
of USDA Foods to emergency food providers, many of which are
faith-based organizations, up from the 1.7 billion pounds that
were supplied in Fiscal Year 2019.
In October 2020, the Connecticut Food Bank reported seeing
a 44 percent increase in demand for food and services, while at
the same time facing complications from national supply chain
issues and a reduction of corporate food donations by more than
half. Despite the incredible challenges, in Fiscal Year 2020,
they were able to distribute 47 million pounds and serve
147,000 people each month.
It is clear that, while the pandemic has created continuous
challenges for our food banks and emergency food organizations,
such as supply chain struggles and soaring demand, they have
overcome these obstacles and shown great resiliency in the face
of crisis. Similarly, CSFP, FDPIR, and organizations that
operate them transitioned quickly to continue serving seniors
and families living on reservations during the pandemic.
Respectively, they served more than 69,000 and 75,000 Americans
on average each month in Fiscal Year 2020.
From home delivery to mobile pantries to drive through
services, feeding organizations have made critical adjustments
to protect the safety of their volunteers, employees, and those
they serve, while still fulfilling their commitment to provide
food to those in need during challenging times, especially
during the holiday season when so many are relying on food
distribution programs to feed their families at times of
celebration.
We thank each of you for your incredible service to your
communities. I look forward to hearing more about your
experiences over the past couple years and your recommendations
for our Committee as we move forward.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Hayes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jahana Hayes, a Representative in Congress
from Connecticut
Thank you to each of our witnesses for joining us today. I
appreciate you taking time out of your schedules to provide us with
your expertise. I look forward to your testimony and to a productive
conversation about USDA's Food and Nutrition Service's nutrition
distribution programs: The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP),
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
I would also like to offer a warm welcome to our newest Agriculture
Committee Member, Representative Shontel Brown from Ohio's 11th
District! We are so excited to have you join us, and I am overjoyed to
be able to host you for your first Agriculture Committee activity.
Today we will explore the implementation of these important
programs, the adjustments made during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the
long-term needs of these programs and the organizations that operate
them.
TEFAP, CSFP, and FDPIR support millions of Americans in need each
year. These programs purchase American-grown commodities for
distribution to food banks, Tribal organizations, and other eligible
community-based organizations supporting individuals experiencing food
insecurity, serving both to combat hunger and support America's
farmers.
Throughout the pandemic, as many of us saw first-hand in our
communities, these programs have shown great resiliency. They have
responded to unprecedented challenges and adjusted quickly to continue
delivering food safely to those in need.
USDA's Economic Research Service found that, in 2020, 6.7 percent
of U.S. households reported using a food pantry, an increase from 4.4
percent in 2019. Further, TEFAP supplied 2.2 billion pounds of USDA
Foods to emergency food providers, many of which are faith-based
organizations, up from the 1.7 billion pounds that were supplied in
Fiscal Year 2019.
In October 2020, the Connecticut Food Bank reported seeing a 44
percent increase in demand for food and services while, at the same
time, facing complications from national supply chain issues and a
reduction of corporate food donations by more than half. Despite the
incredible challenges, in Fiscal Year 2020, they were able to
distribute 47 million meals and serve 147,000 people each month.
It is clear that, while the pandemic has created continuous
challenges for our food banks and emergency feeding organizations, such
as supply chain struggles and soaring demand, they have overcome these
obstacles and shown great resiliency in the face of crisis.
Similarly, CSFP, FDPIR, and the organizations that operate them
transitioned quickly to continue serving seniors and families living on
reservations during the pandemic. Respectively, they served more than
690,000 and 75,000 Americans on average each month in Fiscal Year 2020.
From home delivery to mobile pantries, to drive-through service,
feeding organizations have made critical adjustments to protect the
safety of their volunteers, employees, and those they serve, while
still fulfilling their commitment to provide food to those in need
during challenging times.
Especially during the holiday season, when so many are relying on
food distribution programs to feed their families at times of
celebration, we thank each of you for your incredible service to your
communities. I look forward to hearing more about your experiences over
the past couple years and your recommendations for our Committee moving
forward.
The Chairwoman. I now would like to welcome the
distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Bacon, for any opening remarks he would like to give.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DON BACON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NEBRASKA
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate your
comments, and I also want to welcome Representative Shontel
Brown. Welcome to Congress, and welcome to the Subcommittee. I
want to thank each of our witnesses for your participation
today as well.
I want to first reiterate how important it is for this
Committee, and frankly, all the committees of Congress to bring
forward to the Administration for conversations such as these.
Whether it is the Agriculture Committee or any of the other
committees, the Administration has largely been AWOL from these
committees. We are failing at our obligation as policy makers
and as stewards of taxpayer dollars when we neglect our
oversight committees. And right now, as far as I can tell, the
only Committee doing that is the Armed Services Committee. I
think we can do better.
Now, on the topic at hand, the Department's nutrition
distribution programs, namely TEFAP, CSFP, and FDPIR have long
been complementary to SNAP and have aided families in need
across the country, but we may be at a crossroads. The pandemic
has shown us that there are so many different ways to do
things, that massive spending does not necessarily lead to
desired outcomes. So, I look forward to hearing what has worked
and what has not worked, and where we can potentially step in
and make changes that make sense to both operators and
recipients.
I think CSFP is a great example. I recall Mr. Kubik's 2017
testimony regarding CSFP, and from that, necessary improvements
were made to the program in the 2018 Farm Bill. So, this
testimony does work. Simply put, I am not sure autopilot is the
right way to continue.
With that, I look forward to continuing today's
conversation, and again, I want to thank the witnesses for
taking your valuable time to share your expertise.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Madam Chairwoman, you may be on mute.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Scott
for any opening statements he would like to make. I don't think
Chairman Scott is here from the full Committee, so I recognize
Ranking Member Thompson for any opening comments he would like
to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairwoman Hayes. I appreciate
that, and I want to add my welcome to the gentlelady from Ohio
that is joining us. I am glad to have you on board. Thank you
to our witnesses for your participation today.
We last discussed these nutrition distribution programs,
TEFAP, CSFP, and FDPIR in 2017. Now, that hearing focused on
the interaction between them and how they, in concert with
SNAP, Americans in need found nutrition relief. Since 2017, a
farm bill was signed into law and a pandemic ravished our
nation and disrupted the way these programs were implemented.
Today is an opportunity to hear about both, but also what the
future looks like for each program.
The way I envision the future is through questions. Can we
potentially reimagine how we distribute aid to families in
need? If the pandemic taught us anything, it is that there is
no one way to do anything, nutrition distribution programs
included. Is there an opportunity to further work with
organizations who are more deeply immersed in the communities?
Does it make sense to expand these services to help families
find independence simultaneously? How do we ensure these
programs don't contribute to the growing instances of
nutrition-related chronic disease? Is there an opportunity for
a stronger relationship between distribution and nutrition
education?
Again, I appreciate the witnesses taking the time to share
their expertise and foresight, and look forward to the
discussion.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so witnesses may begin their
testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
I am pleased to welcome such a distinguished panel of
witnesses to our hearing today. Our witnesses bring to our
hearing a wide range of experience and expertise, and I thank
you for joining us.
Our first witness today is Mr. Carlos Rodriguez, the
President and CEO of Community FoodBank of New Jersey. The
Community FoodBank of New Jersey has seen record growth in its
food distribution and program development under his leadership.
Mr. Rodriguez has more than 25 years of executive leadership
experience focused on improving policies and delivering
services to those in need.
Our next witness today is Ms. Mary Greene Trottier, who is
the President of the National Association of Food Distribution
Programs on Indian Reservations. Ms. Trottier brings a great
wealth of knowledge to our hearing today, having served as
Spirit Lake Tribes Director of Food Distribution Programs for
36 years, and director of their Commodity Supplemental Food
Program for 4 years.
Our third witness today is Mr. Frank Kubik, the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program Director at Focus: HOPE in Detroit,
Michigan. Mr. Kubik is a current board member of the National
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, and a four-
time president of the association. He has been with Focus: HOPE
since 1981, and has served in his current role for 10 years.
Each month, Focus: HOPE provides food assistance to over 41,000
senior citizens in Michigan.
Our fourth and final witness is Mr. Dave Donaldson, who is
the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CityServe
International in Bakersfield, California. In his role, Mr.
Donaldson works to train and resource local churches and
nonprofits to serve families in need. He has been with the
organization since 2016.
I welcome all of our witnesses today for this hearing so
that we can conduct our oversight responsibilities on the NODO
(Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations) Subcommittee.
We will now proceed to hearing your testimony. You will
each have 5 minutes. The timer should be visible to you on your
screen and will count down to 0, at which point, your time has
expired.
Mr. Rodriguez, if you are ready, please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS M. RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, COMMUNITY FoodBank OF NEW JERSEY, HILLSIDE, NJ
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairwoman Hayes and Ranking
Member Bacon, as well as distinguished Committee Members, for
the invitation to testify today. I am grateful to share my
perspective on the levels of food insecurity in my community
and how critically important nutrition distribution programs
are to assist.
The Community FoodBank of New Jersey is a member of Feeding
America, the largest hunger relief network in the country. A
network of more than 200 food banks and over 60,000 local
partner agencies. This network helped provide 6.6 billion meals
to tens of millions of people in need last year. Like our
sister food banks across the country, the Community FoodBank of
New Jersey works to fight hunger by engaging, educating, and
empowering our community. We provide food for immediate need,
connect families with critical financial resources, and address
root causes of hunger. We work across sectors to create food
security for all, and work with a wide variety of private and
Federal food sources to secure donated and purchased essential
groceries. Through this large, decentralized grassroots network
of more than 800 community-based feeding programs, in 2021, we
distributed food to support more than 85 million meals in 15 of
the 21 New Jersey counties, where 800,000 residents struggle
with food insecurity, including 200,000 children.
In the circumstances we face today, there is more
uncertainty in front of us than stability. I want to be clear
that despite the significant actions that have been taken, our
concerns about the charitable food supply keeping pace with
need are serious. Any time there is a natural disaster or
economic crisis, low-income families and individuals are the
last to recover. Although the overall statistics of our
national economy have rebounded with low unemployment, the
families we serve are still on a longer road to recovery,
particularly as the direct pandemic relief measures phase out.
During an early pandemic distribution, I met a mom of two
and a caretaker for her own elderly mom. Marissa was in a
miles-long line for emergency food assistance. Having been
furloughed from her job at a daycare a few months before, her
savings were enough to pay for 2 months' rent and expenses
before she found herself running critically low on funds. She
was unsure what the future would hold for her family when she
turned to the food bank for help. She told us right now, we are
just living day by day. The struggles of our neighbors and food
bank challenges continue to be complicated, not just by current
supply chain disruptions and temporary increases in food
prices. These challenges are all felt across the food bank
network.
Feeding America reports that costs to transport donated
food has increased 20 percent since last year. Our own
transport costs jumped 34 percent in a single year due to
COVID. COVID has dramatically altered the mix of food that we
source. A drop in donations necessitated a dramatic increase in
food purchases, 58 percent nationally, and our own food
purchases more than tripled in a single year. For these
reasons, our national network of food banks has requested, and
I encourage this Committee to support, an additional $900
million for TEFAP in Fiscal Year 2022 spending legislation.
With investment from the Federal Government, the United States
has the potential not just to emerge from this crisis stronger
and better positioned to meet the evolving needs of our
communities, but towards ending hunger in America. We applaud
the actions taken by Congress and USDA, and a special thank you
to Secretary Vilsack for his heartfelt note last night, which
have been critical to support communities and families since
the start of the pandemic. Bipartisan Federal intervention and
an unprecedented response from the charitable food system
helped prevent food insecurity from increasing even higher in
2020.
We will overcome supply chain challenges, but to achieve
the reality of people in America not facing hunger, we have to
commit with increased fervor. There were tens of millions of
people in America facing hunger before the pandemic, and that
is still true today. Yet, as stated, an unprecedented response
can achieve significant change. The most significant source of
USDA Foods is The Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP.
It smoothes out volatility that the pandemic-related supply
chain challenges have caused. It provides stable source of food
for the network. Today, TEFAP offers more than 120 foods. It is
the backbone of charitable food system with an impact that is
felt across every state in the country.
The food banks and Feeding America network are uniquely
capable of working to reduce food insecurity. Through 40 years
of growing our capacity, building public and private
partnerships, responding to numerous crises, and driving
innovation, we have certainly seen a lot. I hope my testimony
and the questions I am open to answering have demonstrated the
critical value of USDA food programs, TEFAP chief among them,
to the work food banks do to address and prevent hunger among
our neighbors. TEFAP's stabilizing effect on the food supply as
a reliable source of nutritious food for families in need has
never been more important.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carlos M. Rodriguez, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Community FoodBank of New Jersey, Hillside, NJ
Dear Chairwoman Hayes and Ranking Member Bacon,
Who We Are
Thank you for the invitation to testify at today's hearing, a
Review of USDA Nutrition Distribution Programs. My name is Carlos
Rodriguez and I am President and CEO of the Community FoodBank of New
Jersey. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective on
the levels of food insecurity in my community and how nutrition
distribution programs assist in ensuring we have enough nutritious food
to serve any one who walks through the doors of the food bank and our
partner agencies.
The Community FoodBank of New Jersey is a member of Feeding
America, the largest hunger-relief network in the country. Through a
network of more than 200 food banks, 21 statewide food bank
associations, and over 60,000 partner agencies, food pantries and meal
programs, our food bank and the Feeding America network helped provide
6.6 billion meals to tens of millions of people in need last year. Like
our sister food banks across the country, the Community FoodBank of New
Jersey works to fight hunger by engaging, educating and empowering our
community. We provide food for immediate need, connect families with
critical financial resources, and address root causes of hunger,
working across sectors to create food security for all. We work with a
wide variety of retailers, farmers, manufacturers, distributors, and
Federal programs to secure donated and purchased essential groceries.
We distribute this food through a large, decentralized grassroots
network of more than 800 community-based feeding programs. In 2020, we
distributed food to support more than 85 million meals through our
network of partners in New Jersey, where 800,000 residents struggle
with food insecurity, including 200,000 children.
Our work depends on broad community support. Feeding America food
banks are supported by millions of volunteers, who help us pack food
boxes, organize and manage food distributions, and address other client
needs. In addition to managing a food supply chain that moves 7.5
billion pounds of food in 2020, the national network of food banks also
provides a variety of additional programs and services, ranging from
food pharmacies and nutrition education to job training and assistance
with applying for benefit programs. Collectively, we serve children,
families and seniors in every county in the United States, including
each of the 21 counties in New Jersey.
The food banks in the Feeding America network are uniquely capable
of working to reduce food insecurity. Through forty years of growing
our capacity, building public-private partnerships, responding to
crises and driving innovation, we've seen it all.
Demand We Are Seeing
Between disruptions to the supply chain, increased need for help,
and adoption of new safety protocols that shifted our distribution
models, the pandemic presented a perfect storm for the charitable food
system. We are still feeling those effects today. The COVID-19 pandemic
continues both to significantly impact people facing hunger, and to
challenge food banks to meet higher demand for emergency food
assistance. Feeding America food banks have reported a 40 percent
average increase in demand for food assistance, and nearly 40 percent
of people served at food banks since the beginning of the pandemic are
new to the charitable food system. Our experience in New Jersey matches
these national trends.
There were tens of millions of people in America facing hunger
before the pandemic and that is still true today. In 2020, 38 million
people (one in eight individuals), including 12 million children (one
in six children) were food-insecure, up from 35 million in 2019. In
addition, households with children were 1.7 times more likely to face
hunger compared to households with no children. Households headed by
single women are 2.6 times more likely than average to face hunger.
Bipartisan Federal intervention and an unprecedented response from the
charitable food system helped prevent food insecurity from increasing
even higher in 2020. According to data compiled by the Urban Institute,
60 million people accessed charitable food assistance in 2020, an
increase of 50% over the prior year (Source, Charitable Food assistance
report from FA: https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/charitable-
food-access).
COVID-19 Recovery Legislation and investments in nutrition programs
in the American Rescue Plan Act have helped support families and reduce
some of the demand our food bank is seeing, but demand is continuing to
exceed pre-pandemic levels. With the sustained demand for food
assistance, people facing hunger and food banks across the nation will
need additional investments in nutrition programs to put food on the
table.
Our work to provide enough nutritious foods for households in New
Jersey is complicated by current supply chain disruptions and temporary
increases in food prices. These challenges are felt across the food
bank network. Feeding America reports that the cost to transport
donated food to food banks has increased 20% since last year. Our own
transport costs jumped 34% in a single year due to COVID.
In addition, COVID has dramatically altered the mix of food sources
that food banks are accessing in order to keep up with pandemic needs.
A drop in donations has necessitated dramatic increases in food
purchases--up 58% nationally for FY21 from the previous fiscal year
(1,096M meals vs. 692M). The Community FoodBank of New Jersey's food
purchases more than tripled in a single year.
At the same time, food from USDA commodities are also lower this
year. USDA foods, some of the most nutritious foods our network
distributes, are the backbone of our network's food supply. This vital
food source is expected to decline by up to 30%.
CFBNJ Food Sourcing Trends and Plans
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The most significant source of USDA foods is The Emergency Food
Assistance Program, or TEFAP, which helps smooth out the volatility
that pandemic-related supply chain challenges have caused by providing
a stable source of nutritious food for our network.
What is The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Since its inception in the early 1980s as a program to connect
surplus commodity products with emergency feeding organizations, TEFAP
has served a dual purpose of providing nutritious food to the nation's
charitable community while supporting U.S. grown commodities. As the
program proved its efficacy and efficiency, it expanded to become an
essential part of how food banks and other local organizations provide
food to people in need. Today, TEFAP offers more than 120 foods,
including fruits and vegetables, eggs, meat, poultry, fish, nuts, milk
and cheese, and whole-grain and enriched grain products, including
rice, cereal, and pasta. It is the backbone of the charitable food
system with an impact that is felt in every state across the country.
The Feeding America network is the largest TEFAP participant, with
193 of our 200 food banks receiving and distributing TEFAP foods.
Feeding America food banks receive TEFAP foods through their respective
states and then distribute the food directly to local organizations,
including food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters.
States and the Feeding America food bank network place food orders
with USDA, which then works with the food industry to fulfill the
orders. Each state is required to determine how TEFAP foods are
distributed, and they oversee the agencies that distribute the food.
The Federal statute requires states collect streamlined information on
who is in need of emergency food assistance, specifically name,
address, number in household, and income. States have significant
flexibility to structure TEFAP operations to meet the needs of local
communities, something the state of New Jersey was a critical partner
on throughout the pandemic.
TEFAP Bonus commodity purchases are driven by the need for
commodity support as prices for commodity foods fluctuate. When the
price of an agricultural commodity falls so low that the market for it
is in danger, the Department of Agriculture spends money to purchase
enough of that commodity to stabilize the market. These purchased foods
are then distributed through the TEFAP program to those who need a
helping hand. This is a highly-efficient public private partnership,
supporting agricultural markets, while allowing for the purchase of
nutritious food when it is at a very low price point.
The farm bill also authorizes funds to support the storage and
distribution of TEFAP commodities, although this is not mandatory
funding and depends on an annual appropriation. These are dollars spent
to help defray the cost of storing commodities and then moving them to
the distribution point so they can be accessed by our clients.
Unfortunately, the funds Congress has historically appropriated for the
purposes of TEFAP storage and distribution are significantly less than
the costs incurred by our food bank members. Food banks make up the
shortfall for the storage and distribution costs to ensure equitable
and efficient distribution of TEFAP foods into the community. If
Congress were to appropriate the full authorized amount of storage and
distribution funds, food charities would have additional resources to
provide services in their communities.
How TEFAP Helps
The Emergency Food Assistance Program illustrates how a government
program, nonprofits, and the private sector can work together to
provide targeted, accessible, and cost efficient food assistance that
is responsive to immediate need in local communities. TEFAP is a very
responsive program, because it can be accessed by struggling families
and individuals on an as needed basis. After a sudden emergency leaves
a family without money, there is a place to turn. For many of the
people we serve, the need for food assistance can be episodic and due
to unexpected expenses, such as a car breaking down or a sudden layoff.
TEFAP helps fill the gaps when this happens.
In addition to the food provided to food banks and other nonprofits
by USDA, support for food assistance through other nutrition programs
plays a critical role in feeding families and individuals in our
communities and across the country. Our food-insecure neighbors rely
heavily on an array of Federal programs such as SNAP, school lunches,
WIC, and senior meals to meet their families needs. Millions of
Americans would not have the food they need to survive without the
continued support of strong Federal nutrition programs.
SNAP is the most important of these programs and stands as the
nation's first line of defense against hunger. Feeding America food
banks will distribute between six and seven billion meals this year.
SNAP provides nine times that amount of food. Continuing to invest in
SNAP will reduce food insecurity, improve health outcomes, reduce
burden on food banks, and continue to stimulate local economies.
What More is Needed
We applaud the actions taken by Congress and USDA, which have been
critical to support communities and families since the start of the
pandemic. These actions have led to innovative school meal delivery
programs like Pandemic EBT, SNAP emergency allotments for the duration
of the public health emergency, an additional $1.2 billion in short-
term TEFAP funding in 2020, and an estimated $2 billion in USDA funding
for emergency food assistance in 2022. In 2020, USDA foods provided 2.4
billion out of the 6.1 billion meals that the Feeding America network
distributed.
We anticipate total food delivered from USDA to have dropped 30% in
2021 compared to 2020 due to the end of USDA's trade mitigation food
purchases and other temporary programs. Although actions taken by USDA
to support the emergency food network will help provide $2 billion in
support in Fiscal Year 2022, we are concerned it can't keep pace with
the headwinds and continued demand we are seeing. Congress can help the
families we serve by providing additional funding for TEFAP food
purchases in FY2022 spending legislation, building on the strong
foundation of TEFAP food USDA already expects to provide in 2022.
The Community FoodBank of New Jersey is grateful for the continued
partnership between the USDA, farmers, and agriculture partners to
provide healthy, nutritious U.S. grown commodities to community members
in need. We also look forward to continuing to work with Congress to
ensure continued investments in TEFAP and other Federal nutrition
programs to serve families facing hunger.
We also hope that Congress will pass additional essential support
programs for the people we serve in The Build Back Better Act, which is
a strong down payment on the investments that are needed to drastically
reduce hunger and poverty for millions of children nationwide. These
provisions are a critical step forward for millions in our country
struggling to make ends meet--particularly for children facing hunger
in this country.
Conclusion
I hope my testimony has demonstrated the critical value of USDA
food programs, TEFAP chief among them, to the work food banks do to
address and prevent hunger among our neighbors. TEFAP's stabilizing
effect on the food supply as a reliable source of nutritious food for
families in need has never been more important.
In the circumstances we face today, with more uncertainty in front
of us than stability, I want to also be clear that despite the
significant actions that have been taken, our concerns about the food
supply keeping pace with need are serious. Any time there is a natural
disaster or economic crisis, low-income families and individuals are
the last to recover; this crisis has left no community untouched.
Although the overall statistics of our national economy have rebounded,
with low unemployment, the families I serve are still on a road to
recovery.
For these reasons, our national network of food banks has
requested--and I encourage this Committee to support--an additional
$900 million for TEFAP in FY 2022 spending legislation. With investment
from the Federal Government, the United States has the potential to
emerge from this crisis stronger and better-positioned to meet the
evolving needs of our communities and to end hunger in America.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Carlos Rodriguez,
President & CEO,
Community FoodBank of New Jersey.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
I now recognize Ms. Greene Trottier. If you are ready,
please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY GREENE TROTTIER, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN
RESERVATIONS; DIRECTOR OF FOOD
DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS, SPIRIT LAKE TRIBE, FORT TOTTEN, ND
Ms. Greene Trottier. Good morning, everyone. Chairwoman
Hayes, Ranking Member Bacon, and Members of Congress, my name
is Mary Greene Trottier, and I am member of the Spirit Lake
Tribe in North Dakota. I serve as President of the National
Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian
Reservations. I also serve as the Director for my program
serving food distribution, commodity food, and also senior
farmers' markets. These programs are a critical part of our
food security safety net in our Tribal community, as well as
other Tribal communities across the country. I would like to
thank the Committee for asking me to testify today.
A little bit about food distribution. We provide food
assistance and nutrition education to nearly 100,000 people
across Indian Country each month. We also employ local and
Tribal community members in over 100 Indian Tribal
organizations who administer the programs locally for citizens
of 276 different Tribes. Over half of our FDPIR participants
are working men and women, many of whom have children at home,
in addition to nearly half of the FDPIR household members who
have a household member over the age of 60. FDPIR is a critical
part of our food security safety net for rural and remote
reservation communities where many of our people lack the
access to a grocery store or convenience store that might serve
as a SNAP vendor. It is also critical as a stop-gap for our
Tribal citizens in places with no food, with no, or limited,
access to storage or transportation. [inaudible] operations, we
serve over 100 ITOs in Indian Country----
The Chairwoman. Excuse me. I am sorry. Ms. Greene Trottier,
can you suspend for just a second? I must remind all members to
please mute your lines so that we can hear the testimony of the
witnesses. Thank you.
Ms. Greene Trottier, I am sorry about that. Please
continue.
Ms. Greene Trottier. One distribution practice is known as
tailgating, and essentially consists of delivery out of the
back of a truck to clients who are homebound or otherwise may
be unable to pick up food for the month. Poor internet access
makes the practice of tailgating very difficult. Tribal
communities have some of the lowest access to broadband in the
entire country, and where that access does exist, it comes with
an average speed 66 percent slower than any other areas. This
is especially problematic for FDPIR when we are transferring to
a new inventory system that doesn't accommodate mobile usage,
so that cripples our tailgating sites and finding it difficult,
if not impossible, to use the new software developed on
tailgating sites. Mobile markets would be another addition that
would be beneficial for FDPIR sites.
Other inventory management software programs exist that
could both meet Federal data and privacy standards and work
better for ITOs, so there are other models out there that we
are looking to use.
In the spirit of self-determination and to solve some of
these problems, Tribes have recently requested that USDA look
more broadly at allowable software systems that better suit our
daily operations. While USDA has agreed they have the legal
authority to authorize this, it has not yet utilized that
authority to--and unable to present a timely time table for
FDPIR. We will continue to work with our Tribal leadership to
discuss this issue and the government-to-government
consultation with USDA officials.
Some of the impacts that we have had for food distribution,
the COVID pandemic has had a disastrous impact on supply chain
issues and the U.S. overall food system, and FDPIR has
significantly felt those impacts. When the pandemic began in
March 2020, our program saw an immediate rise in participation,
with half of ITOs reporting that they certified over 600 new
households in 1 week during the first week in March.
The rise in participation put a strain on inventory
initially. Fresh produce deliveries were significantly delayed
and are even feeling the impacts of the supply chain crisis
right now, especially with fresh produce, which is one of our
important products that we offer for our participants.
One of the ways that we can address these issues would be
through opening up more local sourcing opportunities for these
products in a way that looks similar to what USDA accomplished
in the early rounds of the Farmers to Families Food Boxes. ITOs
would be willing to work directly with local vendors to source
local fruits and vegetables. It would eliminate a whole host of
fresh produce delivery problems. The food would be traveling
shorter distances, and therefore far less likely to arrive
spoiled or rotten. By prioritizing local purchasing, it would
also provide that market opportunity for native producers.
Investing in agriculture through nutrition programs is a
huge benefit for everyone. Tribal citizens will have more
access to good food, and native producers will have a chance to
grow their businesses, create jobs, and support the local
Tribal economy.
The 2018 Farm Bill made several adjustments for FDPIR that
ITO program managers and Tribal leaders have been seeking for a
long time. One of the most exciting changes is the ``638'' *
demonstration project. This project acknowledges Tribal
sovereignty and food system by authorizing Tribes to procure
foods directly for the food package instead of going through
USDA and having the Federal Government choose what food
products are best for us. The 638 contracts started working a
couple of months ago, and they are already ensuring that
Tribally-grown nutritious foods are making their way to the
tables of Native Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: 638 refers to Pub. L. 93-638, the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although 638 contracts were awarded at the end of September
2021 and Tribes were prepared immediately to purchase and
provide these Native American produced foods to their own
people, the system issues delayed them. At least two out of the
638 Tribes have had the decision to make to either wait up to 8
additional weeks to start delivering fresh produce to their
participants, or undertake the process of manually recording
inventory until the product codes can be pushed through the
system. So, there are some glitches----
The Chairwoman. Ms. Greene Trottier----
Ms. Greene Trottier.--with our inventory management system
that we need to address, upgrade, and keep our inventories
accurate.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Greene Trottier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Greene Trottier, President, National
Association of Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations;
Director of Food Distribution Programs, Spirit Lake Tribe, Fort Totten,
ND
Introduction
Chairwoman Hayes, Ranking Member Bacon, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Mary Greene Trottier. I am a member of the Spirit
Lake Sioux Nation and President of the National Association of Food
Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations (NAFDPIR). I also serve as
the manager for my food distribution program in Fort Totten, North
Dakota, where we regularly serve approximately 850 people through FDPIR
each month. This program is a critical part of our food security safety
net in my community, and I would like to thank the Committee for asking
me to testify today about this important program.
About FDPIR
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
provides both food assistance and nutrition education to nearly 100,000
people across Indian Country each month. The program employs Tribal and
local community members in over 100 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs)
who administer the program locally for citizens of 276 different
Tribes. While over \1/2\ of FDPIR participants are working men and
women, many of whom have young children at home, FDPIR also serves a
significant number of elders--nearly \1/2\ of FDPIR households have
members over the age of sixty.
We employ Tribal members like myself at ITOs across the country,
where we serve our communities as ITO managers, ITO staff, warehouse
employees, and more. FDPIR has also provided a means for some of our
Tribal food businesses and producers to access the USDA Commodity Foods
market and sell food directly to USDA for use in our food packages. In
this way, our participants gain access to traditional foods like wild
rice, bison, blue cornmeal, salmon, and catfish, while Tribally owned
food businesses see the benefits of economic development through
agricultural production. Recent developments in the 2018 Farm Bill have
further opened up that market opportunity for our Tribal producers, and
I will discuss those impacts later in my testimony.
FDPIR is a critical part of our food security safety net for our
rural and remote reservation communities where many of our people lack
meaningful access to a full-service grocery store or convenience store
that might serve as a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
vendor. As a commodities program providing food directly to our
participants, FDPIR serves as a critical stopgap for Tribal citizens in
places with no or limited access to stores or transportation. In
addition to providing a food package that ranks incredibly high on the
USDA's Healthy Eating Index, we also strive to provide nutrition
education opportunities to our participants, to the extent that we are
able with our limited nutrition education funding.
The ITO program managers who administer this program across Indian
Country have been working with their Tribal leadership for decades--
some of us since the program began in the 1970s--to improve the quality
and nutrition of the products offered in the food package. Today,
because of that work and advocacy, we offer fresh fruits and vegetables
in the food package year-round, as well as a small but growing variety
of traditional and culturally appropriate foods, including wild rice,
bison, salmon, blue cornmeal, lamb and mutton, catfish, and more. These
foods are not only incredibly nutritious--high in omega 3 fatty acids
that support heart health and cognition--but they are also more
frequently being sourced from Tribal food producers, which supports
Tribal economies across Indian Country.
Current Operations
Currently, FDPIR is serving approximately 75,000-80,000 people each
month across Indian Country, administered on the ground by a little
over 100 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), the Indian Country
equivalent of State Agencies. Although Federal regulations are in place
that guide the overall structure of the program and available foods in
the package, ITOs do have some flexibility with program setup and
delivery. Some ITOs are set up as a warehouse model where participants
come to pick up assembled food packages, while others are set up as a
storefront concept where participants come and shop for their monthly
food package like they would in a store, selecting allowable products
as determined by USDA.
One of the distribution practices in FDPIR that has received some
criticism is the practice of tailgating, or what is essentially
delivery of FDPIR food packages to participants who may be homebound or
otherwise unable to come to the ITO for pickup. While I do not agree
that tailgating should be ended, because in many cases those deliveries
are the only ways Tribal elders receive their food packages, the
criticisms of this practice that have come from some Tribal nutrition
advocates are understandable. From their perspective, this practice is
a direct callback to a time when the Federal Government ``fulfilled''
its trust responsibility to Tribal Nations by dumping rotting
foodstuffs in Tribal communities. The impact of that historical trauma
is still present in our communities today, and that drives a lot of the
critiques of tailgating. Modern tailgating as offered by Tribes, for
Tribal citizens, however, is not at all like that horrible practice of
dumped food from a faceless and uncaring Federal Government. Instead,
ITOs making food deliveries and tailgating today do it as part of a
service to their community. Food is delivered safely in refrigerated
vehicles where refrigeration is needed, and prior to COVID-19 and the
need for social distancing, ITO staff would often be welcomed into our
elders' homes to help unpackage heavy boxes of food and visit with them
at the same time, providing a vital social lifeline for our homebound
elders.
The main issue we are actually having with tailgating now is not
bad service from the Federal Government, but bad internet service.
Tribal communities have some of the lowest access to broadband in the
entire country, and where that access does exist it comes with an
average speed that is 66% slower than other areas. This is problematic
for FDPIR for many reasons, but especially now as we are working to
transition to a new inventory management software. This software, the
Integrated Food Management System (IFMS) was developed by a Federal
contractor using USDA specifications. Unfortunately, despite early
feedback and concerns from ITOs, IFMS does not accommodate mobile
usage, so sites that offer tailgating services are finding it difficult
if not impossible to utilize this new software on tailgating runs
because of the lack of mobile functionality and limited internet
service. To be able to properly adjust inventory while on deliveries,
the software needs to be able to function on a mobile phone using
cellular data, or more ideally, a strong WiFi signal, neither of which
is currently possible with the system as developed.
There are other inventory management software programs that could
both meet Federal data and privacy standards and work better for ITOs.
In the spirit of self-determination and to solve some of these problems
ourselves, Tribes have recently requested that USDA look more broadly
at allowable software systems and authorize FDPIR sites to use our
administrative funds to support licensing our own software that suits
our daily operations. While USDA has agreed that they do have the legal
authority to authorize this, the Department has not yet decided whether
or not they want to utilize that authority. We continue to work with
our Tribal leadership to discuss this issue in government-to-government
consultation with USDA officials, and just concluded a consultation
yesterday on this issue.
Pandemic Impacts on FDPIR
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had disastrous impacts on supply
chains and the overall U.S. food system, and FDPIR has certainly felt
those impacts as well. When the pandemic began in March 2020, our
program saw an immediate rise in participation as Tribal Governments
closed borders and businesses to try and slow the spread of the
coronavirus. Between March and April 2020, the program as a whole saw a
14% average rise in participation, with 50% of all ITOs reporting that
they certified over 600 new households in 1 week in March 2020. That
rise in participation put a strain on inventory initially, with 66% of
ITOs reporting in March/April 2020 that they were out of some inventory
items and 43% of ITOs reporting that fresh fruits and vegetables were
out of stock.
Fresh produce deliveries were very much impacted by the pandemic.
Many of our sites are so rural and remote that fresh produce trucks
servicing our sites are not only carrying produce for FDPIR on their
delivery trucks, but also shipments for local schools, restaurants, and
other businesses. As schools and restaurants closed down in response to
the pandemic, those delivery companies could no longer fill trucks and
justify the expense of sending a driver and paying for fuel to just one
site--so in my region, Mountain Plains, we had deliveries of produce
that were incredibly delayed. Delaying shipment of fresh produce of
course means that there is a higher potential for produce to be spoiled
when it does finally arrive, and waiting for USDA to work with the
Department of Defense Fresh Program to replace that produce frequently
took weeks. This reduced the fresh produce offerings we were able to
provide to our participants. Those issues have not entirely stopped,
either--even now in late 2021, we are still experiencing supply chain
issues around fresh produce.
One way to address the ongoing produce issues that some FDPIR sites
experience would be opening up more local sourcing opportunities for
those products, in a way that looks similar to what USDA accomplished
with the early rounds of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program in
2020. When that program debuted, Tribal leaders and the NAFDPIR Board
recognized the model AMS was using immediately, because it was exactly
what we have been asking for in FDPIR for years. Moving to a system
like Farmers to Families, where ITO's and Tribes are able to work
directly with local vendors to source fresh fruits and vegetables would
eliminate a whole host of fresh produce delivery problems and result in
more regular offerings of nutritious food for our participants. Because
the food would be traveling shorter distances, it would also be far
less likely to arrive spoiled or rotten, and because we would be
prioritizing local purchasing it would also provide that market
opportunity for Native producers. Investing in agriculture through
nutrition programs is a huge benefit for everyone: Tribal citizens have
more access to good food, and Native producers have a chance to grow
their businesses, create jobs, and support the local Tribal economy.
Farm Bill 2018 Implementation: ``638'' for FDPIR
The 2018 Farm Bill made several adjustments to FDPIR that ITO
program managers and Tribal leaders had been seeking for a long time,
but the most exciting one of those changes is likely the application
for the first time of ``638'' authority to USDA. This demonstration
project acknowledges Tribal sovereignty in food systems by authorizing
Tribes to produce food products directly for the food package instead
of going through USDA and having the Federal Government choose what
food products are best for us.
The first 638 contracts started work just a couple of months ago,
and are already ensuring that Tribally grown nutritious foods are
making their way to their participants, like halibut in programs served
by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium; bison, whitefish, wild
rice, apples and lake trout from Oneida and Menominee; walleye, shell
eggs, and an entire package of fresh produce from Little Traverse Bay
Bands of Odawa Indians; beef and roast beef from Chickasaw Nation;
fresh produce from Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; salmon from
Lummi Nation; and whitefish, wild rice, and fresh produce from Red
Cliff Band of Superior Chippewa. These contracts and associated award
costs totaled $3.5 million in spending, leaving USDA with $2 million
remaining in current appropriations to continue the good work this
program is doing for Tribal citizens and Native food producers.
Aside from ensuring that the demonstration project continues to
receive annual appropriations of at least $3 million, if not the full
$5 million authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill, one of the more
significant hurdles to swiftly implementing this provision has actually
been the computer systems issue that I raised earlier. Because the food
products Tribes are sourcing have not previously been part of the food
package, they must have product codes created for them so that they can
be received into and processed out of site inventory. This is a best
practice for inventory management that ITOs are happy to follow,
however, the delays in addressing technical issues with IFMS have also
delayed creation and deployment of these new product codes. The end
result of this delay is that although 638 contracts were awarded at the
end of September 2021 and Tribes were prepared to immediately purchase
and provide Native produced foods to their people through these
contracts, the system was not ready to receive them. At least two of
the 638 Tribes have had to make the decision to either wait up to 8
additional weeks to start delivering fresh products to their
participants, or undertake the process of manually recording inventory
until product codes can be pushed out through system updates.
All of these things may sound like a normal cost of doing business
in a retail environment--but it's important to remember that FDPIR is
not a retail environment. Our program is a public service that provides
food to our people, and in some cases, we are their sole source of
nutritious food products or nutrition education, especially nutrition
education done in a culturally relevant way. As Tribal Nations, we also
come to the administration of this program from a different perspective
than similar commodity programs run primarily for non-Native audiences.
For Tribes, this is a matter of sovereignty and a means of renewing our
food systems in a good way that seeks to heal from some of the past
historical trauma associated with Federal food provisioning, like the
example about food dumped on riverbanks. Those traumas are still
associated with food in our communities, and that means when problems
like these discussed here today continue to occur over decades in a
program we see as an extension of the trust responsibility the Federal
Government owes to Tribal Nations, we view those problems not just as
frustrations, but as further disparate treatment from the Federal
Government.
Continued Nation to Nation consultation with USDA has gone a long
way to solving some of our longstanding programmatic issues, however.
Over the past three Presidential Administrations our Tribal leaders
have talked directly with USDA officials about FDPIR and the service it
provides to our communities. We are hopeful that this continued
dialogue will support further progress, not only for FDPIR, but for
other commodity assistance programs, such as the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP). CSFP is one of the only other commodity programs
that Tribes are legally eligible to administer--others, like The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) currently do not include
Tribal Nations as statutorily eligible to administer. I run my Tribe's
CSFP program in addition to our FDPIR program, and can state
unequivocally that there is significant work to be done in bringing
CSFP food offerings up to the standard that we are able to offer in
FDPIR. The inventory we are provided through CSFP is not of the same
quality as FDPIR and often comes in truly bizarre packaging--one recent
example from the past year were gallon Ziploc bags of spaghetti sauce
intended to be handed out through CSFP to our Tribal elders. We have
requested consultation with USDA on these and similar CSFP issues and
hope to open up that conversation soon so that we can address some of
these problems.
Future Policy Pathways to Improved Nutrition Distribution Service in
Indian Country
Expanding the FDPIR 638 demonstration project from the 2018 Farm
Bill and making it permanent, with mandatory funding, would be a
wonderful pathway to continue increasing Tribal citizens' access to
nutritious, traditional and culturally appropriate foods, as well as
fresh fruits and vegetables. The program could also use another influx
of infrastructure dollars--the $50 million in CARES Act funds that
Congress appropriated last year for this was a significant help to
program sites that have not been able to upgrade their warehouse
facilities and vehicles in decades, but the cost increases in materials
for those upgrades, especially construction, meant that not every FDPIR
site was able to take advantage of that new funding to response to
coronavirus pandemic impacts. Some FDPIR sites actually declined to
apply for the funds because they knew their neighboring sites or other
sites in their regions had deeper needs. Another influx of
infrastructure dollars would help serve every site and make sure each
ITO has their needs met.
We also need increased access to nutrition education dollars so
that Tribes can provide nutrition education directly to Tribal citizens
instead of forcing us to go through State Agencies to access those
funds. The President's FY22 budget requested a small increase in
nutrition education funds for FDPIR, which is a great start. But the
largest pool of nutrition education dollars in USDA's programming is
the SNAP-Ed program, and Tribal Nations and ITOs are not included as
eligible applicants for these programs. That would require a statutory
change in the 2023 Farm Bill. Having an increased opportunity to
provide nutrition education right now would be well-timed, as our
program is starting to see more traditional foods and fresh produce
from the 638 contracting, and USDA is partnering with Indigenous chefs
like Sean Sherman to do demo recipes using those traditional foods.
That kind of Indigenous-led education about our foods reconnects
Indigenous people to the nutritious foods that kept us healthy and
thriving for thousands of years, but we currently lack the funding
capacity within our program to provide that as a regular service.
Instead, ITOs compete for a small amount of funding annually that
cannot cover every FDPIR participant. This pits Tribes against each
other when we could be working more cooperatively if we were all fully
eligible for funding, but ultimately the people who are harmed by this
lack of funding are our Tribal citizens.
It is always important to remember that not every Tribe is a self-
governance Tribe, however, and we need to continue to see policies that
support both self-governance and direct service Tribes in feeding their
people the best possible food. Working with USDA to offer more
localized purchasing of fresh fruits and vegetables through the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), for example, would be a way to
support direct service Tribes; expanding 638 to source more foods and
making that a permanent part of the program would support self-
governance Tribes. Both policy pathways lead to a place where Tribal
citizens are eating better food likely sourced from Native producers,
and both are important to have in place at the same time, because there
is no one size fits all solution when you are addressing the needs of
574 sovereign Tribal Nations.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Ms. Greene Trottier, we are over
the 5 minutes.
Ms. Greene Trottier. Okay.
The Chairwoman. I would ask you to stop there. I apologize
for calling you by the wrong name earlier. I skipped ahead in
my script. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Kubik for 5 minutes of testimony.
Please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF FRANK KUBIK, DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM, FOCUS: HOPE; MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
ASSOCIATION, DETROIT, MI
Mr. Kubik. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Hayes and
Ranking Member Bacon, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for this invitation to speak about the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program today. I am grateful for this opportunity.
CSFP has a long history of supporting our at-risk senior
population by providing regular access to food items to
supplement a healthy diet for them. The monthly food boxes
provide a variety of items that can be incorporated into meals
throughout a given month, reducing out-of-pocket costs and
allowing senior income to be used for other food, medicine, or
personal household needs, helping the senior to remain healthy
and independent.
I want to thank this Subcommittee for improvements to the
certification process in the last farm bill, and for their long
consistent support for our program. Extending the certification
period from 1 year to 3 years results in easing the paperwork
burden on program operators, and more importantly, it allows
senior participants, whose financial situation is not likely to
change significantly, it allows them to stay enrolled in this
important program while they need it the most.
We are hopeful that the next farm bill will address the
issue of allowing seniors at risk to receive the program
services that they need but are currently ineligible for.
Removing the Medicare deduction from the senior's income
determination is one idea that we are looking at.
These past 2 years have been challenging, not only for
participants, but for the staff and volunteers who run CSFP.
Normal practices had to be quickly set aside in the face of the
pandemic to protect those most susceptible. Stay-at-home
orders, social distancing, and personal protection for
essential workers combined to help keep us safe, but forced our
agencies to revamp many of their distribution practices for the
safety of all involved. Thank you to the Food Nutrition Service
at USDA for their additional administrative action to help
participants of programs and the workers and volunteers to stay
safe while distributing and receiving the needed food package.
The practice of participants entering a building to stand
and wait in line for food was replaced by drive-through
distribution boxes at many sites. Agencies set up social
distancing areas and used personal protection equipment and
drive-through pickup to allow participants to stay safe in
their cars. Some put up tents in their parking lots to help
staff and volunteers all through the elements. Others added or
expanded delivery programs. Michigan winters are challenging,
but the dedicated staff and volunteers stepped up to ensure
that program participants continued to receive the nutritious
food that they needed. Local agencies continued and expanded
the use of proxies for food pick up, allowing seniors to stay
home. They used automated calling services to announce closures
and reschedule distributions. They used phone apps and signage
to keep the lines moving. Some agencies used a third party,
such as Amazon, to help deliver boxes to seniors who are
homebound. And while these efforts kept distributions going,
there are areas beyond their control that limited program
operations.
Stay-at-home orders kept participants away from
distribution sites. New COVID variants, personal safety
concerns, and lack of personal transportation continue to limit
participation. Despite all of this, agencies combined to serve
their senior participants and not one senior in our program at
Focus: HOPE went without their food box, no matter what their
situation was in regards to COVID. Thank you to the dedicated
staff and volunteers who make this possible.
CSFP became available in all 50 states in 2019. National
program caseload has remained the same since 2019, with
caseload adjustments made between regions and states to support
distribution trends. We are working to maintain distribution
levels and expect higher participation rates as the pandemic
subsides and participant levels rise as previous participants
return and new participants join in the program. In addition,
beyond the effects of the pandemic, the population of
potentially eligible CSFP participants is expected to grow as
baby boomers age into the required age bracket.
States and partner agencies have the benefit of maintaining
CSFP caseload and funding last year, and will benefit from the
same opportunity moving forward as the program and
participation stabilize.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the USDA
Midwest Region Food Nutrition Service and the Michigan
Department of Education, Office of Health and Nutrition
Services for all of their support in the State of Michigan and
the entire Midwest region. They are great partners in the fight
to end hunger in this country.
Working for others is an honor and a privilege. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing
us to do our part and for your support of the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program. We are deeply appreciative of you,
and I know that the seniors who are on the program that you
have impacted share my appreciation for all that you have done
and continue to do on their behalf. Thank you for your
continued support of CSFP and the seniors across the country
who need their basic services.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kubik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Kubik, Director of the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, Focus: HOPE; Member, Board of Directors,
National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, Detroit, MI
Chairwoman Hayes and Members of the Nutrition Subcommittee,
My name is Frank Kubik. I am the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP) Director at Focus: HOPE in Detroit, Michigan and I am
also a board member of the National CSFP Association. Thank you for the
invitation to speak about CSFP here today. I am grateful for the
opportunity to share the efforts and effects of the CSFP over the past
2 years.
CSFP has a long history of supporting our senior population by
providing regular access to food items that supplement a healthy diet
for seniors. The monthly food boxes provide a variety of items that can
be incorporated into meals throughout a given month, reducing out of
pocket food costs, and allowing senior income to be used for other
food, medicine, or personal and household needs.
I want to thank this Subcommittee for improvements to the
certification process for CSFP in the last farm bill. Extending the
certification period for our senior participants from 1 year to 3 years
resulted in easing the paperwork burden on program operators. More
importantly, it allows senior participants, whose financial situation
is not likely to change significantly, to stay enrolled on this
important program while they need it the most. We are hopeful that the
next farm bill will address the issue of allowing seniors to receive
the program services while they may currently be ineligible but still
in need of CSFP. Removing the Medicare deduction from a senior's income
determination is one idea that we are looking at.
CSFP provides more than just food. Our distributions provide
information on healthy meal planning and lifestyle choices. Where
possible, some offer health screenings, cooking demonstrations, tax
assistance, utility assistance, and even access to other food programs
such as The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). CSFP
distributions provide social interaction and connection for seniors 60
years of age or older, providing comfort in the face of need.
My comments today are mostly representative of the experiences and
efforts in Michigan, with some additional awareness of national efforts
from my role as a member of the National CSFP Association. These past 2
years have been challenging, not only for our participants, but for the
staff and volunteers who run CSFP. Normal practices had to be quickly
set aside in the face of the pandemic to protect those most
susceptible. Stay at home orders, social distancing, and personal
protection for essential workers combined to help keep us safe but
forced our agencies to revamp many of their distribution practices for
the safety of all involved.
The practice of participants entering a building to stand and wait
in line for food was replaced by drive through distribution of boxes at
many sites. Agencies set up social distancing areas and used personal
protection equipment and drive through pick-up to allow participants to
stay safe in their cars. Some put up tents in their parking lots to
keep staff and volunteers out of the elements. Others added or expanded
delivery programs. They continued and expanded the use of proxies for
food box pick up, allowing seniors to stay home. They used automated
calling services to announce closures and rescheduled distributions.
They used phone apps and signage to keep the lines moving. Some
agencies used a third party, such as Amazon, to help deliver boxes to
seniors who were homebound. And while these efforts kept distributions
going, there were areas beyond their control that limited program
operations.
At times, some agencies had to close down due to quarantine and
outbreaks. Stay at home orders kept participants away from distribution
sites. New [COVID] variants, personal safety concerns, and lack of
personal transportation continue to limit participation. The
availability of CSFP food items decreased. Canned fruit and vegetables
due to packaging material shortages, and Ultra High Temperature (UHT)
fluid milk due to increase prices in the commercial food market,
resulted in reduced food packages for extended periods of time,
continuing still today for canned fruits and vegetables as national
inventories continue to be replaced and built up to previous levels.
CSFP became available in all 50 states in 2019, as well as in six
federally recognized Tribes and Puerto Rico. National program caseload
has remained the same since 2019, with caseload adjustments made
between regions and states to support distribution trends. We are
working to maintain distribution levels and expect higher participation
rates as the pandemic subsides and participant levels rise as previous
participants return and new participants join to become active
participants. In addition, beyond the effects of the pandemic, the
population of potentially eligible CSFP participants is projected to
grow as baby boomers age into the required age bracket.
While additional food program support was much needed over the past
2 years, programs such as CARES, Families First, [COVID] Supplemental,
Farmers to Families, and others provided alternatives to CSFP
participants that may have been more accessible at times. Those
programs provided temporary support and have ended or transitioned into
other programs, and CSFP is working back to full packages for
distribution as participants both old and new seek food support moving
forward. States and partner agencies had the benefit of maintaining
CSFP caseload and funding last year and would benefit from the same
opportunity moving forward as the program and participation stabilize.
Thank you again for the chance to share with you today.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Kubik. I really appreciate
your testimony.
I will now move to Mr. Donaldson. If you are ready, please
begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVE DONALDSON, CO-FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, CityServe
INTERNATIONAL, BAKERSFIELD, CA
Mr. Donaldson. Good morning, Chairwoman Hayes, Ranking
Member Bacon, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Thompson of
the full Agriculture Committee, and the Members of the
Subcommittee. CityServe International offers the following
comments on USDA's nutrition distribution programs and the role
that faith-based organizations can provide in the execution of
these programs.
I am grateful for your service on the Committee for a
couple of reasons. First, I married a farmer's daughter from
North Dakota, and I managed our ranch there for several years
while she taught school. And so, she ran from bell to bell as
well, Chairwoman Hayes. But I know the value of family farms
and what they offer to our nation.
Second, I know what it is like to go to bed hungry. In
1969, my parents were hit head-on by a drunk driver, killing my
dad and debilitating my mother for many years. It was a village
comprised of government, food banks, churches that provided
food, clothing, and hope that we can make it through the
crisis. Subsequently, my mother got on her feet and became a
lead buyer for Dow Chemical. Now, let me just add, it was a
combination of the aid, but also the life coaching of a trusted
friend.
CityServe International is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt faith-
based organization that provides logistical and structural
guidance to churches that feel ill-equipped to fully reach the
needs of their communities. CityServe is aware of TEFAP, CSFP,
FDPIR, and while we acknowledge the goals of these programs,
gaps exist among them in both rural and urban communities.
Moreover, access to them to further drive down community and
regional hunger has not been made available yet to our
organization. Our experience with government funding programs
is linked to USDA's Agricultural Marketing Services, Farmers to
Families Food Box Program. By all acknowledgment, the Food Box
Program was a new and innovative program geared to respond to
anyone in the U.S. facing food insecurity due to COVID-19. The
Food Box Program, however, was catalytic in discovering other
needs of families that CityServe and our partners were able to
tangibly meet, such as beds, diapers, school supplies, home
furnishings that we provided through our many warehouse hubs
and points of distribution.
But during each distribution, CityServe cultivated trusted
relationships with under-resourced families, and we were able
to successfully link many of them to public and private
programs geared towards helping them move from dependency to
stability.
Under the program, CityServe and its 2,000+ affiliated
organizations, that include National Baptist Convention, World
Vision, Hispanic networks, together we came together to make
sure that the neediest among us would receive food. The program
has effectively responded to the persistent economic disruptive
effects in urban and rural communities, and also with our
Tribal nations. And it was also transformative, reaching those
acutely affected by the recent joblessness and long-term
unemployment, and many had even given up on seeking employment
opportunities and traditional government social support
systems.
On a personal note, I participated in many of the
distributions as part of the means testing, and spoke with
people about their need for the food boxes. Nearly every person
I spoke to said they were running out of food and felt alone in
their struggle. And I cannot adequately describe the importance
of the social interaction that this program brought to people
that were cut off from the support systems of their friends and
churches. And so, this degree of interaction was important. It
may not be available in some of the traditional USDA food
distribution outlets.
Many valuable lessons were learned from the Food Box
Program. With these, CityServe and others across the country
are right now attempting to replicate the program with private
funding. CityServe is currently conducting a Food Box Program
distribution in several states. We actually have instructions
and recipes on how to really live a good balanced life.
Despite the resources of the Federal Government and
redeploying the Food Box Program, and its inclusion of faith
and community-based organizations could significantly bridge
gaps in current USDA programs and could curb food insecurity
among all ages, genders, ethnicities in both rural and urban
communities. CityServe highly encourages Congress to restore
the Food Box Program as a tool within USDA's nutrition
distribution programs.
CityServe thanks the Subcommittee for inviting us to
provide testimony, and is committed to the conversation and
action towards improving the efficiency, reach, and value of
Federal nutrition assistance and distribution programs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donaldson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave Donaldson, Co-Founder and Chairman,
CityServe International, Bakersfield, CA
Chairwoman Hayes, Ranking Member Bacon, and Members of the
Subcommittee, CityServe International (CityServe) offers the following
comments on USDA's nutrition distribution programs and the role that
faith-based organizations can provide in the execution of these
programs.
My name is Dave Donaldson. I am the co-founder and Chairman of
CityServe International. I am grateful to each of you for your service
on the Agriculture Committee for a couple reasons: First, I married a
farmer's daughter from North Dakota and helped to manage our ranch in
North Dakota for several years, so I know the value family farms bring
to our nation. Also, I know what it is like to go to bed hungry. In
1969 my parents were hit head-on by a drunk driver killing my dad and
debilitating my mother for many years. A village comprised of
government, food banks and churches provided food and clothing with the
hope that we could make it through the crisis. Subsequently, my mother
got on her feet and became a lead buyer for Dow Chemical.
Background
CityServe International is a [501(c)(3)] tax-exempt faith-based
organization that provides logistical and structural guidance to
churches that feel ill equipped to fully reach and meet the needs of
their local communities. Local needs and community initiatives include
addressing hunger as well as meeting the needs of the poor and
disaffected, the addicted, and the exploited. Through capacity and
partnership building, CityServe assists in empowering churches to make
greater community engagement and impacts across the world. CityServe's
collaborative network includes faith-based nonprofits, corporations,
retail stores, farmers, and ranchers among other food supply
partnerships.
Since 2016 the CityServe supply chain comprised of warehouse
``HUB's'' channeled millions worth of household goods, furniture,
school supplies, toys, and food to local churches serving their
communities. Local churches are the primary Point of Distribution
(POD). Each POD has committed to be actively involved with their
neighborhoods and community through compassion initiatives. In 2020,
CityServe and its Regional Affiliates distributed over $500 million of
in-kind gifts through PODs to needy families across America. At the
urging of my wife who taught school for 13 years we are even developing
Teacher Resource Centers to furnish teachers with school supplies. It
should be noted that instead of this product ending up in landfills it
is meeting tangible needs.
Current USDA Nutrition Distribution Programs
Specific to USDA's currently operated nutrition distribution
programs, CityServe is aware of The Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). CityServe
acknowledges the goals of these programs to meet the nutritional needs
of vulnerable American citizens. We also recognize, however, that gaps
exist within and among these programs in both rural and urban
communities.
It is well known that over 40 million Americans face hunger every
day and that food insecurity affects all genders, ethnicities, ages,
and backgrounds. Through-out the CityServe network we have established
over 2,000 distribution sites that have been trained in proper food
management and distribution. Despite working with varying ethic groups,
seniors, and children, CityServe and its affiliate members have not
participated in TEFAP, CSFP, or FDPIR. While we acknowledge the work of
these programs, access to them to further drive down community and
regional hunger has not been available to our organization.
Pandemic Response--Farmers to Families Food Box Program
In May 2020, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service developed and
executed the Farmers to Families Food Box Program. By all
acknowledgement, this new and innovative program was geared to respond
to anyone in the U.S. facing food insecurity due to Sars-CoV-2, also
known as the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). The food box program,
however, has been catalytic in discovering other needs of families that
CityServe has been able to tangibly meet by providing beds, diapers,
school supplies, and home furnishings, among other needs. During each
distribution, which represented 17 million boxes from June 2020 through
May 2021, CityServe cultivated the trust of under-resourced families
and successfully linked them to both public and private programs geared
towards helping them move from dependency to stability.
During the operation of the box program, CityServe and its 2,000+
affiliated organizations which included hundreds of African American
led churches within the National Baptist Convention, Hispanic churches,
and great organizations like World Vision, we worked to ensure the
neediest among us had the opportunity to receive food who would
otherwise go without sustenance due to no fault of their own. The
program effectively responded to the significant and persistent
economic disruptive effects on urban and rural communities across
America. In addition, it would become transformative in not just
reaching those acutely affected by recent joblessness, but also the
long-term unemployed who had given up on both employment opportunities
and traditional government social support systems.
On a personal note, I participated in many of the distributions and
as part of the ``Means Testing'' and spoke with people about their need
for the food boxes. Nearly every person I spoke to said that they were
running out of food and felt alone in their struggle. I cannot
adequately convey the importance of the food but also the social
interaction with people closed off from their support system of
friends. This degree of interaction is typically not available at
traditional USDA food distribution outlets.
As the pandemic persisted in 2020, CityServe shifted its focus
towards incremental improvements to USDA's food box program and even
coined the term ``Last Mile'' to describe its mission to assist the
hardest to reach regions in the nation. USDA subsequently incorporated
last mile organizations in the program which enabled CityServe, among
many other nonprofit and faith-based organizations, to efficiently
maximize the reach of the box program. By the end of the program,
CityServe and its affiliates assisted in the delivery of 17 million
food boxes to urban, rural, Tribal Nations and to those in the Rio
Grande Valley. In addition, CityServe has formed enduring relationships
with over 30,000 families and individuals who were given a food box but
now have also found new purpose and commitments within their
communities.
It should be noted that the majority of last mile food box
distribution work was funded through direct donations and targeted
fundraising. In addition, some USDA contractors voluntarily contributed
to CityServe in the early rounds of the food box program. These monies
offset the costs of the last mile deliveries for expenses such as
personal protective equipment, refrigeration, storage, and
transportation costs. When last mile was merged into USDA's
solicitation process, awarded contractors in most cases committed
resources to faith- and community-based organizations in advance of
distributions. This action provided for reaching even farther into
America's food-insecure populations.
The food box program was the first time CityServe was significantly
incorporated in a USDA food distribution program. In addition, the
program's structure provided for higher levels of nutrition with its
inclusion of fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, and dairy products. While
the program was discontinued on May 29, 2021, in an assessment of
USDA's traditional programs in light of the food box program, CityServe
projects that if an aggressive effort of faith- and community-based
nonprofit organizations was incorporated within the current body of
food assistance programs an additional 20 million people annually would
be reached. This reach would translate in helping pull Americans out of
poverty and deal with the conditions that contribute to food
insecurity.
Post-Pandemic
Many valuable lessons were learned from the food box program. The
most significant among them is that the distribution of highly
perishable food and nutrition assistance generally can be performed in
ways that were not previously contemplated and tested. Second, the food
box has proven that the Federal Government can utilize the efficiencies
and seasonality of food in the free market to purchase and deliver high
quality, fresh and highly nutritious food at reasonable prices and
place that food directly in the hands of the food-insecure population.
Such a program, began and could continue to cure food deserts, assist
in curbing health issues that are prevalent among low income and food-
insecure populations, and further the goal of ending hunger in America.
Because of these lessons, CityServe, food pantries, and food
producers and distributors across the country are all attempting to
replicate the program with private funding. CityServe is currently
conducting food box program distributions in several states. That said,
the resources of the Federal Government in redeploying the food box
program and its inclusion of the faith- and community-based
organization could significantly bridge gaps in current USDA programs
and curb food insecurity among all genders, ages, and ethnicities in
both rural and urban communities. CityServe highly encourages Congress
restore the food box program as a tool within USDA's nutrition
distribution programs. We also encourage the inclusion of faith- and
community-based organizations in existing USDA distribution programs.
Conclusion
CityServe has assisted in the delivery of 17 million USDA food
boxes to the ``hardest-to-reach'' communities. Generally, CityServe's
work represents a community of churches and nonprofit organizations
that have proven that their assistance is needed and that we will
continue to be a critical member of the nutrition assistance community
to respond to that need. The reach of our organization has found food-
insecure populations in both urban and rural areas and among some in
Tribal Nations. CityServe takes seriously the work of feeding the
needy, but in addition it also works to investigate and solve the
underlining conditions associated with Americans who are food-insecure.
For this reason, we have developed a network and skill set to reach and
maintain the connection with families and individuals who are often
lost within Federal and state social programs. We will continue to
perform this mission and request that the recommendations above be
considered and incorporated in the Committee's ongoing work.
CityServe thanks the Subcommittee for inviting us to provide
testimony and is committed to the conversation and action towards
improving the efficiency and value of Federal nutrition assistance and
distribution programs.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Donaldson.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in order to
allow us time to get to as many questions as possible. I will
stop questions after 5 minutes. Please keep your microphones
muted until you are recognized in order to minimize background
noise. I will recognize--I am not sure if Ranking Member
Thompson is still here.
Mr. Thompson. I am, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. If you would like to be recognized first, I
will recognize you out of order to ask your questions. Thank
you for joining us.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you so much. Thanks for this great
hearing. Thanks to all the witnesses for your insightful, both
your written testimony and your oral, testimony.
Mr. Donaldson, your written testimony references CSFP,
TEFAP, FDPIR, and acknowledges that gaps exist within and among
these programs in both rural and urban communities. What are
those gaps, and what has CityServe done to fill them?
Mr. Donaldson. Well, thank you for asking that,
Congressman.
CityServe has worked hard on building a collaboration of
faith-based, community-based organizations, and as I mentioned,
over really 2,300 different distribution sites, many of which
are in rural areas. We call it the last mile of need, and in
rural areas, it has been unprecedented to see the many sectors
come together, government, churches, social services, emergency
services that have come together to fill those gaps and to make
sure that nobody is falling through.
And as I mentioned, I really feel like the key component to
this network and engaging the churches is the relationship
side. If you provide--if you wed the social services, which are
wonderful, such as SNAP and others, and you combine that with
the relational programs, for example, of churches, that is the
key, I believe, to helping people move from really dependency
to sustainability. Obviously, there are people that are
suffering with mental, physical disabilities that we just need
to continue to support, and also, we need to respond to victims
of disasters. But overall, I believe that--like my mom, people
want to be lifted out of dependency and into sustainability,
and it has worked.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, sir. I mean, really describing the
amazing moving parts of America's nutritional support that we
are--I know this Committee is proud to be a part of that.
In many cases--and I am going to open this up to whoever
would like to respond. In many cases, food preparation is just
as important as the types of food selected and distributed.
Now, I am interested to hear from the panel about your current
nutrition education efforts that you believe have proven to be
effective, and can you share your views on practical and easy
to understand nutritional education recommendations and their
effects on our communities?
Any of the witnesses who would care to respond to that?
Ms. Greene Trottier. This is Mary Greene Trottier. I would
like to respond that food distribution, we do offer nutrition
education. Our funding is very limited. We have competitive
grants that are available to FDPIR participants that is less
than $1 million. There is additional money in the 2022 budget,
so we are hoping that we can access some of those dollars.
The models that we have within our program are very
sustainable, and they are working. Our clients see us every
month to pick up food, sometimes two, three, four times a month
to receive those benefits. So, they have that ability to
provide that much needed nutrition education in Indian Country.
Mr. Thompson. Of all the programs that you offer, is there
one in particular that just really rises to the top, you are
very proud of and would like to see it replicated, just be a
great example of a best practice?
Ms. Greene Trottier. I would have to give a shout-out to my
program. We offer CSFP, Senior Farmers' Market Program, and the
nutrition education component along with the food distribution
program services, and we are also co-located with our local
SNAP agency. So, that model has been a really good use in our
country to work together and we are able to provide education
for both agencies by having them co-located.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. I know my time is waning here, so
I don't really have time to hear from the other witnesses. But
I would ask if you do have best practices that you have
identified, just great examples of effective nutrition
education, if you could forward that and share that with the
Committee, I think we would all benefit from your experiences
and your successes.
So, Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much and I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member Thompson.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rodriguez, you mentioned the need for continued storage
and distribution funds for food banks. I have heard about this
same issue back in Connecticut. I led a bipartisan letter with
Representatives Schrier, Davis, and Young asking for $100
million for storage and distribution under TEFAP in Fiscal Year
2022. Is the greater need for storage and distribution funding
a reflection of a lack of sufficient storage space at food
banks, more fresh and perishable food being available to your
clientele, or something else, and how would more funding for
these purposes help you better support your clients?
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
It is a combination of all three. It is the combination of
wanting to provide more nutritious food, which tends to be more
perishable, needing the capacity for food banks, in some cases,
to store more of it. But more importantly, that last mile of
distribution, which is the 60,000 local partners that Feeding
America's network engages with, the faith-based organizations
and the very diverse partners that we engage with, making sure
that they have local or sufficient storage capacity to hold
food, even if it is just temporarily, to get it out to folks in
a food safe manner.
So, we need it in our efforts to continue to grow the
nutritional density of the product that we distribute, and to
couple it with nutrition education and the financial resources
so families can shop on their own. This capacity that you
reference is critical.
We focus on food first, but not food only, and I think that
comprehensive approach is what has a profound impact on our
neighbors.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. I was pleased to see that food
banks consider the items received through USDA Foods to be
highly nutritious and balanced, and include everything from
fruits and vegetables to eggs, meat, poultry, fish, nuts, milk
and more.
The UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health has
recently done research showing that when food banks provide
simple nutrition information on the food they offer to
pantries, food bank clients tend to choose healthier food
options. In your experience, are the healthy foods provided
through the USDA Foods in high demand, and do you think
providing uniform nutrition information across food pantries
would help clients? I would appreciate any help you can give us
in dispelling harmful stereotypes about how low-income families
are not willing to or care about nutritious foods.
Mr. Rodriguez. In just a few years before the pandemic to
this current year, our distribution of fresh produce has
increased from about 15 million pounds to over 35 million
pounds. If there was no demand by our neighbors that we are
looking to serve, there would be no distribution.
What helps in accomplishing that is exactly what you
mentioned, and what the Congressman asked earlier. Simple
awareness is the best education. Many folks don't know what a
rutabaga is, but once we create samples in our test kitchen and
provide it to local pantries and they taste it with common
ingredients, everyone knows what a rutabaga is and we can move
them by the truckload.
So, there is a lot of diversity in food-insecure Americans
around the country, and introducing them to new products,
especially produce, teaching them what the nutritional value
is, and getting the children involved is something that has
been a winning recipe for creating awareness and helping us to
distribute more of that product throughout the country.
And we have great programs. The SNAP-Ed Program supports
nutrition education throughout the country. Here in New Jersey,
we partnered with the state and really bring the two programs
together to be able to leverage not just the foods that we
introduce, but proven interventions that can create nutritional
awareness and healthy habits as well. And it starts with
something simple: awareness.
The Chairwoman. Thank you.
Mr. Kubik, in your testimony, you mentioned that seniors
with income just above eligibility levels often still need food
assistance from CSFP. Can you elaborate on what you have seen
on the ground that speaks to those needs, and how would
reevaluating what is considered income for the purposes of
eligibility for the program help that situation?
Mr. Kubik. We have seen a lot of seniors who come in here
and have real needs for food, but were slightly over the income
guidelines based on the Medicare portion of their social
security. That is considered income even though the money never
hits the senior's account, and the senior never has access to
that cash. So, they are missing the program because they just
went over based on that. We don't have any deductions to
income. We have a straight flat income requirement. We are not
asking for a lot. We don't want to add a burden in terms of
paperwork, administration to the program, but the Medicare
portion, which is not money that the senior sees, seems to be
something that we could look at, and not consider income. That
is all we are saying. We are not looking at any other
deductions or anything else. We just would like to see that
Medicare portion not considered income, because we are missing
seniors who have real needs, and seniors, in our experience,
don't come for help unless they need help, and I think that
is----
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Sorry, my time has expired. I
yield back.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Nebraska, Ranking Member Bacon.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I appreciate
your line of questioning, too. I think nutrition and fresh
foods is a very important topic here.
I work in a lot of different areas with our military and
trying to get people in the military and recruitment, and what
we find is over 70 percent of our 18 year olds to 21, 22 year
olds don't qualify to get in the military largely because of
physical fitness and nutrition. And so, this is a serious
problem, and not just here with folks and food insecurity, but
it is a national problem that merits our discussion.
My first question is to the whole panel. In many cases,
food preparation is just as important as the types of food
selected or distributed. I am interested to hear from the panel
on current nutrition education efforts that you believe have
proven to be effective. Can you share your views on practical,
easy to understand nutrition education recommendations and
their effect in our communities? And I will start with Mr.
Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Ranking Member Bacon.
Nutrition education and the simple awareness of what food
is being provided and available has been very successful for
us. Simple things like including recipes inside distribution
boxes or bags, doing tastings as I referenced earlier, have
gone a long way to introduce new product, mostly fresh product
and fresh produce at that, to a diverse community, especially
here in New Jersey, but throughout the country.
So, it is very simple. We have proven interventions. USDA
has a wonderful list of SNAP-Ed curriculum that have been
proven to have the impact of awareness and creating healthy
habits. When we bring the two together and coordinate both
programs, we found meaningful change. So much so that we are in
a 3 year initiative where we have done exactly that--married
nutritious food to nutrition education and some more health
awareness--and we have seen an impact on diabetes and pre-
diabetic populations in a pilot that we have been running. That
pilot held strong, even throughout the pandemic, and we are now
looking to see how this model, as have other food banks have
done throughout the country, can be expanded and can be
replicated in every community by every partner.
The most wonderful thing about this model is that we did
not do this ourselves. We did this in partnership with our
local network, faith-based pantries, local after school
programs, schools in some cases, to be able to bring product,
no matter who the partner could be, but more importantly, where
the neighbor is that needs it.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you for your comments there.
I would like to ask Ms. Greene Trottier or Mr. Kubik or Mr.
Donaldson if they have anything else to add?
Ms. Greene Trottier. Yes, I would like to add that some of
our nutrition best practices are handing out the recipes,
nutrition education, incentives. We also hold classes with the
high school students and the 5th and 6th grade students. They
come to our facility and they do hands-on food preparation and
learning how to actually prepare food.
One of the issues that I would also like to address is that
Tribes do not have the access to these state SNAP-Ed dollars.
So, we need to find a way that Tribes can have that direct
access to those state SNAP-Ed funds where our communities are
based that have some of the highest poverty levels.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it.
Mr. Kubik or Mr. Donaldson?
Mr. Donaldson. Yes, thank you for your question.
As I mentioned, we are distributing food boxes that are
privately funded and inside, we have recipe cards that describe
the boxes contents, what fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy are in
the box along with recipes, cooking preparation methods for
healthy eating, and as I mentioned earlier, we really believe
that you combine that program with life coaches, people that
care and that can hold you accountable in a really positive
way. And that has really rendered the most success thus far.
Mr. Kubik. I would like to add something also.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
Mr. Kubik. Nutrition education is part of the CSFP
requirement each month, so that each food box does get a
recipe, a newsletter. We do, in our sites, have food
demonstration kitchens, so we can take some of the newer
products that USDA provides and make recipes with them to help
seniors utilize them the best way they can to maximize them.
Many of the seniors will turn in recipes themselves. The
National CSFP Association has a cookbook that is made up of
recipes that were submitted by seniors to the different
programs across the country. So, nutrition ed is really
important, and the seniors love it as well. It gives them a
chance to work with the foods and get the most out of them, and
make new things that they never thought of before.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, sir.
And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I will yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bacon, for your
comments.
I just would like to add that in reference to the USDA
Farmers to Families Food Box, although the program has been
ended under the Biden Administration, it was replaced with
targeted funding to support food banks and the emergency food
systems, including $400 million for purchases of fresh fruits
and vegetables, $100 million to expand the reach of emergency
food systems into underserved areas, including rural, remote,
Tribal, and low-income communities, and $400 million for states
and Tribes to directly purchase local foods for distribution
and as an effort to combat or address some of the fraud that
was reported in that [Farmers to Families Food Box] program.
So, although the program has been suspended, the
investments remain, just in more targeted programs.
I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina,
Representative Adams for 5 minutes of questioning. You may
begin when you are ready.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
Bacon, for hosting today's hearing, and thank you to our
witnesses for their testimony.
Food distribution programs have played a critical role in
addressing food insecurity during the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. According to Feeding America, at least 60 million
people turned to charitable food assistance programs in 2020.
That is an increase of 50 percent from the previous year. In my
district in Mecklenburg County, The Emergency Food Assistance
Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
collectively provided over 22.6 million pounds of food in our
community. And, as the U.S. continues to grapple with the
pandemic and associated supply chain disruptions, we must
continue to provide the waivers and the flexibilities that have
assisted Federal distributions programs to fight hunger.
Though, in previous hearings, my colleagues from across the
aisle would have framed current supply chain disruptions and
volatile food prices as being caused by the current
Administration. These problems were brought on by the pandemic
during the last Administration, problems that we continue to
face today.
Now, Madam Chairwoman, before I continue, I would like
unanimous consent to insert two articles into the record, a May
11, 2020 New York Times article describing empty shelves at
grocery stores in New York and across the country, with waiting
lists and black markets for items such as flour and pasta, and
a June 9, 2020 article from Wall Street Journal highlighting
the fastest rising food prices in more than 40 years.
The Chairwoman. So ordered.
[The articles referred to are located on p. 41.]
Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Greene Trottier, excuse me. You noted that supply chain
issues caused by the pandemic began to be felt by the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations as early as March
of 2020, with 66 percent of Indian Tribal organizations
reporting in March and April of 2020 that they were out of some
inventory items. I want to ask how have stocking levels
recovered for most of the Indian Tribal organizations? Are you
seeing any continued impacts that we should be aware of?
Ms. Greene Trottier. We have struggled with maintaining
adequate fresh produce choices through the pandemic. Supply
chain issues were a big part of not receiving the full
catalogue of items that we expected. We continue to have,
oftentimes, poor quality of produce and vendor accountability
for supplying fresh produce.
Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez, in addition to supply chain complications
which have impacted food banks since the beginning of the
pandemic, you mentioned that a drop in donations has
contributed substantially to the dramatic increase in food
purchases that food banks have had to make. So, how have the
decreases in donations impacted the ability of your food bank
to plan for and keep up with increased demand during the
pandemic, and are there ways that Congress can better
incentivize donations?
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congresswoman.
You are absolutely right, first of all, that supply chain
issues started as early as March of 2020, as soon as the
pandemic hit ground. It started with donations not being as
available as there was a run on products by those who can
afford and did afford to be able to purchase. And it has
evolved since then, and I just have to commend the team here at
Community FoodBank of New Jersey that adapted to the many
different supply chain challenges throughout the last 20+
months.
A stabilizing element in our ability to provide the record
amount of food that we provided was the TEFAP program, as I
testified earlier. It is this product that we can consistently
work on bringing in, work with our local state Department of
Agriculture, who have been amazing partners throughout this
effort to be able to purchase food where we see gaps, make the
buys that are available, and bringing in the quantities that
make sense for our local partners to absorb. It is this
juggling act and ability to leverage different food sources and
supplies of food that make food banks an essential, boots-on-
the-ground responder, and it is the way we have been able to
adapt to the many challenges, and I am sure will continue to
adapt to the challenges that are in front of us.
We commit to----
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, thank
you. Madam Chairwoman, I am out of time so I am going to yield
back. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Adams.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Representative
Crawford. If you are ready, please begin your 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
hearing today, and to the panelists, I appreciate your
comments.
First, let me applaud CityServe's important work in your
community and the work you do to include high quality food in
your distribution efforts. I represent a rural district, as
many on this Committee do, and many of my constituents don't
have immediate access to fresh foods, especially produce, in
their communities. And that is one of the ironies of rural
America, one of the most productive agricultural parts of the
world, and we suffer from food deserts in many cases for a lot
of folks.
Mr. Donaldson, you are correct that the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program did reveal opportunities to move excess fresh
foods to people in need. How could CityServe's model be
expanded in that role or utilized nationwide to help solve that
last mile challenge that you addressed earlier?
Mr. Donaldson. Well, thank you for your question,
Congressman, and yes, we have put a lot of effort into the
rural areas in Arkansas where the need is severe.
I just got to tell you, the [Farmers to Families] Food Box
Program, for us, was highly successful. It was a huge welcome
mat to faith-based, community-based organizations within our
network that were previously not engaged in food insecurity
issues. And so, as a result, it raised up an army of compassion
across the country. We distributed over 17 million boxes and we
were also able to train these volunteers. And then it ended, as
you know, last May. And so, we really believe, as I described
in my testimony, it was very effective. Obviously, there were
some bad actors and there were some things that we can improve
upon, but that is our hope that this could be reinstituted and
we could build upon the success of it.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you for the response.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
don't have anything further, so I will yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Crawford, and
thank you for your questions. That is a very important issue.
One of the complaints that we heard about the program is that
it didn't reach all communities. About 22 percent of U.S.
counties did not have access to the program, so that is a very
important question to ask. Thank you for asking that here.
I now recognize Representative Carbajal for 5 minutes for
questioning. I am not sure if he is still on the platform.
Okay. I will go to our next Democratic Member. I recognize
the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Representative Kuster.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to
unmute and make sure you can hear me.
During this holiday season, we are especially reminded of
the needs of our fellow Americans who struggle with food
insecurity and hunger, and so, this hearing is so important to
highlight advocates and champions who work year-round to make
sure that families have enough food to put on their table.
In New Hampshire, we have our food banks, our community
action programs, and pantries across the state that provide
millions of pounds of food and millions of meals to our fellow
Granite Staters every year. So, I am pleased we have been able
to work in a bipartisan way to strengthen Federal food
purchasing and distribution programs that support these
efforts, especially during the COVID pandemic. And I believe
there is more that Congress can do to strengthen The Emergency
Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP, and other USDA programs.
So, with that in mind, let me turn to Mr. Kubik. The
Commodity Supplemental Food Program is imperative in New
Hampshire, as we have one of the oldest median populations in
the country. With the numbers of these over 60 and eligible for
CSFP growing dramatically, how is your organization, Focus:
HOPE, working to address the growing need and do you have
recommendations for what we can do at the Federal level to
ensure that this program will continue to serve all who need
it?
Mr. Kubik. Well thank you, first of all, for your support
of the program. We are glad to see that New Hampshire came on
10, 15 years ago. The program is thriving there, but we don't
want programs to thrive just to grow programs. We want programs
to serve a need and fit a need. And so, we know with the aging
population with seniors, we have to address the nutritional
needs of those seniors, those who are homebound and isolated. I
think what has worked for us is partnering with other agencies,
other groups in our service area. Whether it is community
agencies, whether it is apartment buildings, businesses, to
make sure that seniors get the food delivered to them at their
apartment building or where they are at. Transportation and
having the ability to reach the food is critical, especially
for seniors. You have to get the food to them, and CSFP with
their volunteer network, with their community organizations can
reach a lot of seniors who are isolated.
But the reality is, the numbers are growing and the
challenge we have as operators is to reach those seniors. And I
can say what has worked for us has been those relationships.
And we have businesses----
Ms. Kuster. Right, and the volunteer efforts. I know I have
done some of that myself, delivering Meals on Wheels, and it
does make such a difference. Often, that is the only contact
that seniors and shut-ins have.
So, I have to move along here. My time is short.
Mr. Rodriguez, I would be curious to get your thoughts
about administrative flexibilities that were put in place for
TEFAP during the pandemic, including adjusting income
eligibility and waiving signature requirements. Do you believe
these flexibilities have been helpful, and do you think that
any of these flexibilities should be made permanent?
Mr. Rodriguez. I do. We are taking stock of the many
waivers that New Jersey applied for and USDA granted. They gave
us the flexibility to adapt when we didn't even know what we
were adapting to in those early days. And it is not just for
the TEFAP program, but for CSFP as well, and all the
distribution programs that we engage with.
It is important to maintain this level of flexibility
because the need constantly changes. Whether it is the root
causes because of a pandemic, a natural disaster, or other
reasons, we are constantly and we are continuously learning
from our neighbors, from our local partners to see how we can
better meet the evolving need of our communities.
And so, yes, I do believe that we should take stock of the
waivers and keep making the program as flexible with the right
balance of maintaining integrity and supply chain opportunity.
Ms. Kuster. Excellent. In my remaining seconds, in addition
to the supply chain complications, you mentioned a drop in
donations. How have the decreases in donations impacted your
ability to plan for and keep up with increasing demand?
Mr. Rodriguez. We had to replace the drop in donations and
address the increase in demand with purchases. As I mentioned,
over three times more purchases than we were doing before the
pandemic. We project we will have to do that for at least
another 2 years to meet the continuous need, absent any more
variables introduced or economic shocks introduced into the
system.
We do see donations coming up, but it is going to take a
longer time to ramp up those relationships, at least here in
New Jersey, and we are hearing the same across the country.
Ms. Kuster. Wonderful. Well, I want to thank you all for
the work that you do, and with that, I will yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Kuster.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Louisiana,
Representative Letlow. You have 5 minutes to begin your
questioning.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairwoman Hayes, and to all the
witnesses, thank you for your time and participation in this
hearing today to discuss the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
nutrition distribution programs.
I represent the 5th District of Louisiana, and as many of
you know, that region of the state is home to many rural
communities that are stimulated by agriculture, small business,
and local economies. When reviewing these nutrition programs, I
believe it is essential to ensure they are adequately meeting
the needs of families, especially in rural America where many
lack access to fresh foods like fruits and vegetables.
Mr. Kubik, in your experience working with the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, what is the participation rate
across rural areas?
Mr. Kubik. I am not prepared to answer that question right
now. I would have to take a look at that because each program,
I am in an urban area, and even our association, our membership
is varied so I don't have an answer to that today. I can
definitely look into that for you and even speak to the program
in Louisiana, Food for Families. Food for Seniors is a program
there that administers it. We can find out and get back to you
on that.
Ms. Letlow. Okay, thank you for that.
And in your written and oral testimony, you complimented
the Committee's work on the 2018 Farm Bill and extending
certification periods for senior participants from at least 1
year to up to 3 years in some circumstances. Can you further
expand upon the impact of these changes, and have you seen an
increase in participation?
Mr. Kubik. Well, our caseload definitely went up, national
cases went up in 2019 to 736,000. So, the impact has been
seniors who, the challenge for them sometimes is just
identifying those documents that you have to certify once a
year on. And so, to come in every 3 years is a big help. Their
situations are going to change. Their eligibility, they go up,
the cost of living and social security, which doesn't put them
over. CSFP gets an adjustment to income once a year because of
inflation. So, there are a lot of seniors that would have been
11th, 12th month and that 1 year certification, and couldn't
find the records at home. I mean, that happens. I can't find
things at home that I am looking for sometimes, so it
definitely is a challenge. So, just spreading it out to 3 years
made a big difference. But again, the situations are going to
change for that senior, so we think 3 years makes sense. We do
updates every year to make sure that they are still current and
with us, but as far as to have to the full certification, proof
of income, we all need that now and it has been a big help.
Ms. Letlow. Okay. Thank you so much for your time, and
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Letlow and Mr.
Kubik. I can't find things on my desk sometimes, so I think it
is completely appropriate that they can't find 3 years' worth
of documents.
I now recognize the gentleman from California,
Representative Panetta. You have 5 minutes when you are ready
to begin your questioning.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you to Ranking Member Bacon. Thank you for holding this
hearing which is on a topic that is obviously very important,
not just to our nation, but also to my home on the Central
Coast of California. And obviously, thank you to the witnesses
who have taken time to prepare their testimony, but more
importantly, all the work that you do to ensure food security
for those who need it the most throughout our country. So,
thank you very much.
I appreciate you being here today to discuss these
important USDA nutrition programs, and obviously, how they
support all Americans in need, particularly in light of what we
have been through and are continuing to go through with the
COVID-19 pandemic. Obviously, over the last 2 years, the
fragility of our nation's food supply has been highlighted, but
so were many opportunities. I have to say, at the Federal
level, we bolstered nutrition assistance programs, and actually
planned for the future to protect Americans experiencing food
insecurity.
And I have to say, I am actually proud of the bipartisan
work that we did here in the United States Congress. Look,
starting back in December of 2018, in which we passed the farm
bill in the 115th Congress, and then obviously, moving forward
into 2020 and 2021, dealing with the pandemic, the increase in
Federal funding for food assistance that obviously led the way
in which we could have a more food-secure future, and then even
now with the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), which invests
nearly $35 billion in funding for proven child nutrition
programs that will help us combat childhood hunger and ensure
children overcome the educational health and economic impacts
of the pandemic.
But obviously, as you have talked about today and we know
pretty well here on this Subcommittee, there is a lot more work
to do. And so, I appreciate our witnesses being here today to
provide these updates, and I do look forward to working with
all of you and working with my colleagues in Congress on both
sides of the aisle to strengthen the USDA nutrition programs.
Mr. Rodriguez, I am going to hit on you first, in regards
to my questions. Recently, I sent a bipartisan letter with my
friend, Adrian Smith, both of us on the Ways and Means
Committee, requesting that there be enhanced tax deductions for
food preparation and donations to food banks.
Now, I am also sure, and based on my discussions with our
food bank people back in the district, in my district on the
Central Coast of California, you are probably aware of the
Harvard Food Policy Clinic's letter that they sent about
basically asking for tax deductions for donations on food that
will be resold, if you see the difference.
Now, I think we will understand that tax incentives for
donations obviously help food banks, but I am concerned that
including food that will be resold in these incentives will
create a revenue stream for those who will sell food rather
than assist food banks, and who will give it away.
So, Mr. Rodriguez, obviously your understanding, your
knowledge of this area, talk to us if you can on how tax
deductions for donations complement your work, but also how
might tax deductions for resold food create larger challenges?
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you for the question, and you are
absolutely right. Tax incentives do help motivate and help
inspire donations by many of our food industry partners, many
of whom participate in donation programs already.
I would be concerned if we expanded to food that is going
to be sold at this moment, and the reason for that, as I
testified earlier, we have seen a drop in donated product. We
are reengaging with our local food industry partners, many of
whom are retail stores, whether they are big brand names or
local family-owned chains, and to be able to have to compete
with a for-profit incentive may cloud and may distract from
being able to bring the food that we need for our most
vulnerable neighbors.
If our neighbors can go buy and purchase food, I guarantee
you they would. The reason they turn to us is because they have
no other choice, and we don't want to limit their choices by
funneling food away into endeavors that may be worth it, but at
this point, I would pause on that and look at what the
implications are, especially as we are just trying to build
back a response and a base that is sorely needed at the moment.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. I am
short on time.
And just let me also say, Mr. Donaldson, I too married a
farmer's daughter from North Dakota, Rugby, North Dakota. So,
we have that in common. So, I yield back.
Mr. Donaldson. Congressman, we have more than that. I
actually live in the Bay area and am a big fan of your dad, and
Monterrey is my favorite getaway place.
Mr. Panetta. It is my favorite place, too.
Mr. Donaldson. I look forward to getting acquainted.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Panetta. Happy to
host an entire hearing to bring the two of you together.
I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Representative
Baird. You have 5 minutes for questioning. Please begin when
you are ready.
Mr. Baird. Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the invitation,
and I really appreciate you and the Ranking Member's efforts to
bring this kind of discussion, and I appreciate the witnesses.
I have no additional questions. A lot of the ones I had
have been answered already very well, and so, I yield back.
Thank you.
The Chairwoman. Well, thank you so much for joining us on
today's hearing.
Seeing no further Members of the Subcommittee, I now
welcome the gentlelady from Ohio, Representative Brown, who has
waived onto this Committee to join us for questions. You have 5
minutes. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, thank
you, thank you for the kind introduction and thank you to the
witnesses for joining us today.
Madam Chairwoman, I am proud to attend my first Agriculture
Committee hearing, especially on the topic of the critical role
of food distribution programs which have played a huge role in
fighting hunger during the pandemic.
Congress made historic investments, including through the
CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) and the American Rescue Plan (P.L.
117-2), aimed at strengthening and expanding the nutrition
safety net. Boosts to SNAP and USDA nutrition distribution
programs provided a critical lifeline to vulnerable children
and families from Ohio and across America. Specifically, The
Emergency Food Assistance Program supported Ohio's food banks,
including the Greater Cleveland Food Bank and the Akron Canton
Regional Food Bank in my district, as they did heroic work to
feed hungry Ohioans in the darkest days of the pandemic. From
July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, the Ohio Association of Food
Banks, network of food banks, and hunger relief agencies
provided 290 million pounds of food, or around 242 million
meals to Ohio families. Of this, TEFAP provided over 72 million
pounds of food, or nearly 1 out of every 4 pounds of food
distributed statewide. So, there is no doubt that food
distribution programs played a critical role in addressing
hunger during the pandemic.
According to the USDA, food insecurity remained nearly
unchanged from 2019 to 2020; however, hundreds of thousands of
Ohio households continue to experience food insecurity and
hunger actually increased among Black Americans nationwide. In
the face of these continued challenges, I look forward to
working with my colleagues on the Committee to further
strengthen nutrition programs to ensure no American goes
hungry.
So, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Carlos Rodriguez.
In your written testimony, you say that SNAP is the most
important of our Federal anti-hunger programs, and the nation's
first line of defense against hunger. Can you please speak
about the interactions between SNAP and TEFAP and how SNAP
supports the work you do at the Community FoodBank of New
Jersey?
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you, Congresswoman Brown, for that
question, and welcome to the Committee I should say as well.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez. A big shout-out to our friends in Cleveland.
I had the privilege of visiting them a few years back. An
amazing food bank indeed.
TEFAP and SNAP work hand in hand, and in fact, in many of
the food distributions that we are part of, either directly or
through our pantries, we want to ensure that anyone who finds
they have a need for emergency food also has access and the
opportunity to apply for the SNAP Program. And in fact, it is
the first line of defense, you are correct in pointing out. It
allows families to do what you and I probably take for granted:
going to a local market and making the choices that are right
for our families. That is what the SNAP Program does. It gets
us closer and closest to doing what we all want to do, which is
be able to sustain ourselves with our employment and our jobs
and what our community provides. When that is not enough, the
SNAP Program is that first line of defense, and when that is
not enough, you have TEFAP and emergency food, or as folks
transition to that program or become aware or navigate the
application process, we have those programs.
So, you are right in pointing out that they work hand in
hand, glove in glove, and hopefully the more folks on SNAP, at
one point we hope, with an adequate and strong program, and it
has been strengthening, it will mean less need for emergency
food over the long run.
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez, USDA this week announced $400 million in
funding through the American Rescue Plan to support local food
purchases with an emphasis on purchasing from underserved
farmers and ranchers, as well as another $50 million available
for TEFAP reach and resiliency grants. What kind of things
could this funding help you do?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, we are excited to look into the
details of that funding, work with our local farmers here in
the Garden State of New Jersey, and see how we can continue to
build on something we have been doing since the Farmers to
Families boxes, which is bring in more produce, more garden,
more Jersey fresh produce specifically into the hands of our
neighbors that need it the most. So, we are eager to see how we
can put that to work.
I just have to commend the focus on disadvantaged farmers
to kind of give them a leg up. It is overall strengthening our
supply chain and our ability to produce our own food in more
than the ways that we are used to and were disrupted by the
pandemic. So, it is a welcome addition, and we look forward to
engaging with it as appropriate.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
Madam Chairwoman, I see my time is expiring, so I yield
back. Thank you so much.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Representative Brown, for
joining us and for your line of questioning. It is always very
important to me to highlight the dignity that goes to low-
income families having the ability to shop and choose their own
foods, and I think that the SNAP Program and the benefits
provided really help to do that.
Seeing no other Republican Members, I see that Mr. Carbajal
has rejoined the hearing. Are there any Republicans on the
platform who would like to ask questions?
Okay. I recognize Mr. Carbajal, the gentleman from
California, for questions. You have 5 minutes. Please begin
when you are ready.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Rodriguez, in September of this year I hosted a day-
long hunger tour in my district to visit programs addressing
food insecurity throughout the Central Coast. That day, I also
hosted the ``Hunger Holistically'' roundtable to discuss equity
and access needs in the food systems, and ways that local
programs are helping fill the gaps. I appreciate all the
efforts in my district that are addressing hunger holistically
by providing quality nutritious food, stimulating our local
economy by collaborating with farmers, helping address climate
change, and supporting the health of children and their
families. With over $1.7 billion in COVID relief supplemental
funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP.
In your experience, how did the extra funds help address
food insecurity on a holistic level?
Mr. Rodriguez. First, thank you for your continued
commitment and creating awareness in your local community, and
I love the approach to be holistic. It is not an either/or, but
it is how much can we bring together to make a family whole and
to really nourish our neighbors into a post-pandemic success.
The TEFAP Program was absolutely critical at providing a
stable source of food through 120 different products, many of
them fresh produce and other like products that help us bring
the nutrition that is needed into local communities.
The wonderful thing about our network of food banks, it is
not just a one commodity type or one food source type. We
leverage what we know is available through TEFAP, which at its
core is critical, and we surround it with donations and
purchases to make sure that in every community there is an
opportunity to bring the food that is needed. We couple that
with nutrition education. We invest in our local pantries here
in New Jersey, last year alone $3.2 million for capacity for
hand warmers for those winter distribution months, and other
things that are needed. And that is the investment and that is
the holistic approach that we can learn from through this
pandemic and build on as we move forward to a much stronger
recovery.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, to continue, with
all the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic has had and will
continue to have on tackling hunger, and as we move forward,
what specific aspects of TEFAP work and what elements of the
program can improve, from your perspective as the president of
an organization of your size?
Mr. Rodriguez. Continuing the flexibility that we saw
through waivers is something we can build on to be able to
reach and give flexibility on signatures and documentation, on
alternative use for distributions is something we want to
explore.
As was mentioned already a number of times, this local
purchasing opportunity will help strengthen this public-private
partnership that TEFAP is, strengthen the abilities of new
farmers to engage in the program and help more of the food that
we see in high demand become available to the populations that
need it most.
I think there is a lot to learn. There is a lot to
seriously digest, pun intended here, as we move from this
pandemic reality, continue through a recovery, but really deal
with the aftermath of financial impact that this has had for so
many Americans throughout the country.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Continuing on, with your ask for an additional $900 million
for the TEFAP Program in Fiscal Year 2022, can you highlight
how that money would be used to tackle the crisis at hand?
Mr. Rodriguez. So, there is a drop in TEFAP overall
distribution product that we see happening or happening, about
30 percent of what was cumulative TEFAP product, whether it is
the entitlement, the boxes, or even some trade mitigation
product, that all became available, or intersected, during the
pandemic. Most of that will drop, because some of them were, in
fact, temporary. The $900 million will help us address some of
that drop, especially as I testified, when we see a lot of
volatility and uncertainty in front of us, and donations still
building up over the next 2 years, at least, that is what we
predict here in New Jersey.
So, it is a stabilizing force, a further stabilizing force
that will help us address problems that we know are coming, but
don't really know exactly how they will manifest. And, it is
that stability that we need and we owe for our neighbors that
will continue to struggle and may struggle anew as the economic
rebound continues to take shape.
Mr. Carbajal. Great.
As the farm bill gets ready to be reauthorized in 2023, how
can we improve the TEFAP Program? And I am limited on time, so
a short answer would be great.
Mr. Rodriguez. More food, distribution capacity for us in
our local pantries are the two things that I know happen most.
We bring in new partners all the time. Those two things are
core to expanding further into areas of high need.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you so much, Representative Carbajal,
for your questions.
Seeing no other Members on the platform, this concludes our
questions from Members. Before we adjourn, I invite the Ranking
Member to share any closing comments he may have.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I appreciate
the Chairwoman's mentioning the additional $2 billion in the
food bank center investments. The Office of Inspector General
continues to review TEFAP. I look forward to seeing their
findings. I request unanimous consent to submit the USDA's
OIG's August 2021 Interim Report on TEFAP.
The Chairwoman. Without objection.
[The report referred to is located on p. 54.]
Mr. Bacon. With that, I just want to thank all the
panelists today for sharing their expertise. Nutrition
distribution is important. We live in the wealthiest country in
the world, I would say the greatest country in the world, and a
great nation provides a safety net and also helps get people
out of poverty.
Some of the key takeaways today are that we need multiple
methods in getting nutrition to the most needy. We need to
stress nutrition more as well. I heard that as well today
clearly. And faith-based groups also provide a great
alternative to serving those in need. Finally, it should always
be our goal to give a hand up out of poverty, and not just a
hand out.
And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for your time.
I yield back.
The Chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member Bacon, and I echo
your sentiment in the wealthiest nation in the world, people
should not be hungry, full stop.
I want to thank each of our witnesses for your time today.
I think I speak for the whole Subcommittee when I say how much
we value and respect the important work your organizations are
doing each day to combat food insecurity in the United States.
We value your expertise and appreciate your willingness to
share your time with this Subcommittee.
As we begin to craft the next farm bill, we will reflect on
what we have learned today to make policy that meets the
current needs of our constituents, and again, ensures that no
person goes hungry. Thank you again so much for joining us
today.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This hearing
of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department
Operations is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Articles by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Article 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/11/nyregion/Coronavirus-supermarkets-
items-missing.html]
Gone From Grocery Shelves, Now There's a Mad Dash to Find Them
Here's why some everyday staples have disappeared from
shelves as the crisis changes how people shop and eat.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Allison Arevalo started making and selling pasta after she
couldn't find any at local stores or online.
Credit. Demetrius Freeman for The New York Times.
By Winnie Hu \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nytimes.com/by/winnie-hu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, 2020
The fallout from the coronavirus hit Allison Arevalo when she could
no longer find pasta at the supermarket.
She tried ordering online from Whole Foods. Out of stock. She ran
over to Key Food. Too late: The pasta aisle was cleaned out except for
two bags of whole wheat no one wanted.
So Ms. Arevalo, 41, a chef and cookbook author,\2\ dusted off her
fancy pasta maker and ordered a 50 pound bag of semolina flour from a
restaurant supplier. Soon, her neighbors in Park Slope, Brooklyn, were
turning to her for their pasta fix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.amazon.com/Pasta-Friday-Cookbook-Lets-Together/dp/
1449497896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``I wanted to give people another way to get pasta,'' said Ms.
Arevalo, who now sells 120 pounds of pasta a week.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
``I wanted to give people another way to get pasta,'' said
Ms. Arevalo, who now sells 120 pounds of pasta a week.
Credit. Demetrius Freeman for The New York Times.
As the pandemic has gripped New York, it has caused shortages of
the grocery staples that have become essential for coping with home
confinement. Pasta and bread have become scarce--available today but
not tomorrow, in this store but not that one. Paper towel and snack
aisles have been wiped out. Frozen vegetables, chicken nuggets and even
oat milk are rationed.
The empty shelves have sent frustrated shoppers to online scavenger
hunts and to store after store to wait outside in long lines. Baking
supplies--yeast, flour, baking powder--have become particularly prized
finds as people stuck at home have time to perfect their challah bread
or knead out their anxieties.
``Everybody's becoming a mini-Martha Stewart,'' said Joseph
Viscomi, a supervisor for Morton Williams, which now limits customers
to one yeast package each and has waiting lists at many of its 15 New
York City supermarkets.
Five-pound bags of King Arthur Flour have been so hard to score
that they were selling this week on eBay for $26.49,\3\ five times the
store price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.ebay.com/itm/5lb-Bag-King-Arthur-Unbleached-All-
Purpose-Flour-FREE-Priority-Shipping/
133397431899?epid=4030642862&hash=item1f0f1b465b:g:VMQAAOSwlANeo
JfM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``There's a black market for flour right now,'' said Cristen
Kennedy, 38, a college health educator who has scoured a dozen grocery
and baking sites since flour disappeared from her grocery store in the
Bronx.
The shortages began with panic buying and hoarding as the pandemic
spread, and then continued as those staying at home consumed more
meals, snacks, paper products and cleaning supplies.
``I never knew we ate so much,'' said Nelson Eusebio, the
government relations director of the National Supermarket Association,
who said he was spending between $50 and $75 more per week on his
groceries than he used to.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A familiar scene at many grocery stores in New York and
across the country.
Credit. John Taggart for The New York Times.
Oat milk has become a hot commodity, in part as coffee shop
regulars have become home baristas. It topped a list of fastest-moving
grocery items nationwide, with sales up 353 percent over last year,
according to Nielsen data of consumer packaged goods for an 8 week
period ending April 18.
The slow movers? Sunscreen and vegetable party platters.
The tidal wave of grocery shopping has wiped out inventories at
grocery stores and, in turn, the food distributors that send them
goods.
Since most stores rely on specific distributors, what they have--or
don't have--on the shelves depends on what their distributors have in
stock, and that can vary from store to store.
The inventory shortages have spread to the part of the food supply
chain that serves retail stores, while another part that serves now-
closed restaurants, hotels and schools has been so overwhelmed by a
surplus that farmers have destroyed fresh food \4\ that cannot be sold,
according to food industry analysts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/business/coronavirus-food-
waste-destroyed.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some manufacturers have run up against limited production or
packaging capacity, or cannot find enough trucks to move additional
loads. Many meat processing plants have closed \5\ as their workers
have been sickened by the coronavirus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/business/coronavirus-meat-
shortages.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The problem is that the supply chain--which is everything from
the farm to the supermarket shelf--is fragile at certain points, and
that's why we're seeing the shortages,'' said Phil Lempert, a food
industry analyst and founder of supermarketguru.com.
So now Frank Zapata cannot get enough Nissin instant ramen noodles
for the two CTown supermarkets he owns in Brooklyn and the Bronx.
``When everything is normal, my supplier has a lot, whatever you want
to get,'' he said. ``Now it's hard to get, it's not available.''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Some CTown stores have had a hard time keeping Nissin instant
ramen noodles on their shelves.
Credit. Brittainy Newman/The New York Times.
Morton Williams is missing about 10 to 15 percent of its regular
stock, which is better than a month ago, when it was down nearly 30
percent, Mr. Viscomi said. When he orders ten cases of 2 pound Gold
Medal flour bags from a distributor, he said, ``we're lucky if we get
two cases, and that sells out in a day or two.''
Gristedes and D'Agostino supermarkets have been cleaned out of
Charmin toilet paper, Bounty paper towels, and Lysol and Clorox
cleaners. ``Six months ago, you had one bottle of Lysol for your home,
now everybody wants to have one bottle for every room,'' said John
Catsimatidis, the chief executive of Red Apple Group, which includes
the supermarkets.
His supermarkets have turned to alternative brands and tried to tap
new suppliers. A Canadian company was ready to send a truckload of
Clorox wipes and sprays until its driver refused to deliver to New
York.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Toilet paper has been in particularly high demand. Many
stores have put a limit on how much each customer can buy.
Credit. Brittainy Newman/The New York Times.
Still, shopping for oat milk and Oreos may soon get easier as some
manufacturers expand their production and distribution operations.
In the past month, Mondelez International has increased snack
production in the United States in response to double-digit sales
growth of its brands, including Oreos and Ritz crackers.
It has also hired 1,000 more workers for ``front-line teams'' in
manufacturing, sales and distribution to get snacks onto store shelves
faster, said Glen Walter, president of the company's North America
division.
The pandemic has accelerated the expansion of Oatly, a Swedish
company that has grown steadily since introducing its oat milk to New
York coffee shops in 2017.
Oatly is now manufacturing an average of 500,000 cartons a week at
its factory in New Jersey, up more than 40 percent from the 350,000
cartons per week it was making in January.
``It still won't be enough to keep the shelves fully stocked,''
said Mike Messersmith, president of Oatly North America.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A delivery arriving at a Foodtown grocery store in the Bronx.
Credit. Desiree Rios for The New York Times.
King Arthur Flour has more than doubled production to five million
bags of flour a month, up from less than two million a year ago. Extra
shifts were added at mills and manufacturing plants, and two assembly
lines were repurposed to pack flour into plastic pouches that will be
sold on the company website, said Bill Tine, King Arthur's vice
president of marketing.
Robb MacKie, the president and chief executive of the American
Bakers Association, an industry group, said that more flour was heading
to store shelves, with yeast not far behind. ``We're seeing daily
improvements,'' he said.
The shortages have changed the way that Ms. Arevalo, the chef-
turned-pasta maker, shops for groceries. She used to choose a recipe
and stop for ingredients, now it is the other way around.
Her fresh-made pasta has become so popular that she takes
orders,\6\ selling out in an hour and a half. She charges $6 per pound
online, and leaves the pasta in white paper bags on the stoop of her
brownstone. Only one bag has been stolen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.pastalouise.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when the pandemic ends, she may keep offering pasta pickups.
``It's been this very satisfying way to connect with the
neighborhood,'' she said. ``I can't imagine stopping it now.''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A sign written in chalk outside Ms. Arevalo's home in
Brooklyn where she leaves bags of pasta orders.
Credit. Demetrius Freeman for The New York Times.
Winnie Hu is a reporter on the Metro desk, focusing on
transportation and infrastructure stories. She has also covered
education, politics in City Hall and Albany, and the Bronx and
upstate New York since joining the Times in 1999. @WinnHu
A version of this article appears in print on May 13, 2020,
Section A, Page 15 of the New York edition with the headline:
Getting Creative Amid Shortages.
Article 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-food-prices-drive-consumers-to-hunt-
for-value-11591700401]
Fastest-Rising Food Prices in Decades Drive Consumers to Hunt for Value
Food makers, retailers respond by restoring promotions, bundling
products to help offset biggest price jump since 1970s
Monthly price change of selected food items
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Labor Department
By Annie Gasparro and Jaewon Kang
June 9, 2020 7:00 a.m. ET
Food makers are designing value packs, and supermarkets are
restoring promotions, aiming to offset disruptions wrought by the
coronavirus pandemic that have led to the fastest rise in food prices
in more than 4 decades.
While food companies and supermarkets say they have reopened plants
and resolved supply constraints \1\ that contributed to higher prices,
they also expect prices to remain elevated because of increased costs
for labor and transportation. Companies are buying equipment \2\ and
reconfiguring factories \3\ and stores to keep people safe from the new
coronavirus. Some of those changes are adding costs that are trickling
down to shoppers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-months-that-tore-apart-the-
food-chain-11588174236.
\2\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/makers-race-to-produce-supplies-
for-coronavirus-economy-plexiglass-sanitizer-masks-11590944400.
\3\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/she-polices-social-distancing-at-
krafts-mac-and-cheese-factory-during-coronavirus-11587720602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``These are historical price changes we have never seen in a short
window,'' said Jagtar Nijjar, director of import and commodities at
Gordon Food Service Inc., one of the biggest food-service distributors
in the U.S.
Prices for store-bought food rose a seasonally adjusted 2.6% in
April from a month earlier, according to the Labor Department, the
biggest monthly increase since 1974. The department is due to release
figures for May on Wednesday, and many economic analysts expect it to
be a sharper increase than April. Market-research firm Nielsen said
food prices rose 5.8% in the 13 weeks from March 1 to May 30 compared
with the year-ago period.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Transportation and logistical costs for food makers have
climbed, contributing to the rise in food prices.
Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News.
Mondelez International \4\ Inc. said it is considering smaller
packages of some products like its Oreos and other snacks that cost
less overall. Campbell Soup \5\ Co. said it might add more family-size
packs \6\ that will cost less per ounce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/MDLZ.
\5\ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/CPB.
\6\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/customers-come-back-to-campbells-
soup-11591111836.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. spending on food as a share of disposable personal income
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: USDA.
Editor's note: the chart is an interactive graphic. An
animation of the chart is retained in Committee file.
``There is going to be strain, and I think value will play an
important role for consumers going forward,'' Campbell's Chief
Executive Mark Clouse said.
The job and earning outlook for many is more uncertain than it has
been in years. Nicholas Fereday, executive director of food and
consumer trends for agricultural lender Rabobank, said he expects
spending on food as a percentage of disposable income to rise this year
for the first time in decades.
Karen Stadnicki, a physician assistant in suburban Chicago, said
her hours have been reduced because of the pandemic, lowering the
income her family of five relies on. At the same time, she said, ``my
grocery bill is so much higher.''
``Chicken and beef, if you can find it, is like double what I used
to pay,'' she said.
The jump in meat prices has propelled the overall increase in food
prices. The pandemic has disrupted meatpacking plants, creating
shortages of meat \7\ and pushing up prices. While the meat supply is
improving, promotions are still hard to find, and prices remain high,
retailers said. Meat prices rose 15% in the week ended May 23 from the
prior year, according to Nielsen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-smart-guide-to-the-u-s-meat-
shortage-11588768651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average transaction price at grocery stores
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Earnest Research.
Editor's note: the chart is an interactive graphic. An
animation of the chart is retained in Committee file.
Transportation and logistical costs for food makers are rising,
too. With most air traffic canceled, Be Well Nutrition Inc., maker of
protein-drink brand Iconic Protein, recently chartered a plane to pick
up its main ingredient, grass-fed milk protein, from Ireland.
``The cost is astronomical,'' Chief Operating Officer Mariah
Faulhaber said. She said Be Well hasn't yet raised prices.
Grocery costs also rose because food makers and supermarkets have
pulled back on the discounts they typically apply to about \1/3\ of the
items they sell. Consumers are finding some 28% fewer discounts,
according to Nielsen, because manufacturers are focused on their top
sellers, grocers said.
SpartanNash \8\ Co., which owns more than 150 grocery stores in the
Midwest and distributes food to about 2,100 retailers, said it cut
promotions during the pandemic by about 5%. California chain Bristol
Farms' discount volume is down by half from before the pandemic in part
because the food supply is still in flux, said Kevin Davis, special
adviser to the grocer's board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/SPTN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some customers are migrating to cheaper foods, generic brands and
discount stores, as prices rise. Nicole Reeder, a program coordinator
in New Orleans, said she recently bought vegetables instead of chicken
thighs \9\ for $5.99 a pound, $2 a pound more than a few weeks earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/supermarkets-adjust-meat-sections-
as-coronavirus-cuts-supply-11587051995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``My last grocery haul, I didn't buy any meat,'' she said.
Share of grocery items sold on promotion
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Nielsen.
Editor's note: the chart is an interactive graphic. An
animation of the chart is retained in Committee file.
In response, food makers and retailers are restarting promotions
and adding more lower-priced products to avoid losing customers.
Private-label products have taken sales from big food makers, such as
Kraft Heinz \10\ Co., in recent years, and mainstream grocers,
including Kroger \11\ Co., have lost market share to discount chains,
such as Aldi Inc., and dollar stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/KHC.
\11\ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/KR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SpartanNash said it has restarted promotions for cereal, coffee and
other items but held back on discounts for faster-selling products such
as pasta and frozen vegetables. Bristol Farms said it is promoting more
fresh and prepared foods.
Yogurt-maker Danone SA CEO Emmanuel Faber said shoppers are buying
more bulk packs that cost less per ounce. ``We see people moving to
value,'' he said.
PepsiCo \12\ Inc. has been planning what ranges of prices it should
have for its snacks in different economic scenarios, depending on how
severe a recession is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In any recession in recent history, our business has been pretty
resilient. But we haven't seen anything like what people are
forecasting,'' said Steven Williams, chief executive of PepsiCo Foods
North America.
Consumer Spending Slid in April; Here's Why That Matters
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Consumer spending fell 7.5% in March, prompting further
concerns about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the
economy. Here's why consumer spending is so important and how
it can signal if the country is heading toward a recession.
Photo: Getty Images.
Editor's note: the video is retained in Committee file.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Jimmy Panetta, a Representative in Congress
from California
November 30, 2021
Hon. Lily Batchelder, Hon. Charles Rettig,
Assistant Secretary, Commissioner,
Office of Tax Policy, Internal Revenue Service,
U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Re: Pending Section 170(e)(3) Guidance Project
Dear Assistant Secretary Batchelder and Commissioner Rettig:
We are writing to you to raise our concerns with respect to the
pending guidance project regarding the treatment of charitable
contributions of inventory under section 170(e)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. As the holiday season is upon us and pandemic-related
food supply chain issues impact families in need, we ask why efforts
that allow donors of prepared food to recover their basis and receive
enhanced deductions are no longer being pursued.
This important guidance project would clarify an issue created by
the current Treasury Regulations to ensure that Section 170(e)(3) works
as intended for donors to make charitable contributions of prepared
food. Clarification will help donors satisfy the increased demand on
food banks and other hunger relief agencies in light of the continuing
impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
Specifically, the guidance would provide certainty that donors
would (i) be allowed to recover their basis in contributed inventory,
and (ii) be able to compute the enhanced deduction. The enhanced
deduction is intended by Congress to help compensate potential donors
for the administrative costs associated in making inventory donations.
These costs include the identification and selection of appropriate
food banks and other hunger relief agencies as well as the preparation,
packaging, and shipment of food in accordance with applicable food
safety regulations.
This guidance project has been included in every Treasury
Department/Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Priority Guidance Plan since
2015-2016 and has been designated in more recent plans as a high
priority ``burden reduction'' project. In November of 2020, we
cosponsored bipartisan legislation, H.R. 8817, the Preserving
Charitable Incentives Act, that included a provision encouraging the
IRS to issue this guidance as soon as possible.
Despite the time and resources that the Treasury Department and the
IRS has dedicated to this project and our significant interest in this
guidance being issued in a timely manner, the guidance project was
surprisingly dropped from the recently released 2021-2022 Priority
Guidance Plan.
We believe that the need for this guidance should be given more
priority given the current food insecurity in this country. Given
supply chain shortages at retailers, food banks, and other hunger
relief agencies are even more reliant on donations of prepared foods
from retailers and restaurants, which are particularly impacted by the
lack of guidance in this area.
We respectfully request a written response within thirty (30) days
that explains (i) the reasons why this important project was dropped
from the priority guidance plan, and (ii) what actions the Treasury
Department and the IRS are taking to ensure that donors can recover
their basis and compute the enhanced deduction with respect to
donations of inventory such as currently purchased food.
We believe that providing such certainty is essential to ensure
that charitable donations are encouraged during this critical time and
would like answers as to why it is no longer being prioritized. Thank
you for your prompt attention and consideration of this important
matter.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hon. Jimmy Panetta, Hon. Adrian Smith,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
______
Submitted Report by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress from
Nebraska
[https://www.usda.gov/oig/audit-reports/covid-19-oversight-emergency-
food-assistance-program-interim-report]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COVID-19_Oversight of The Emergency Food Assistance Program_Interim
Report
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Inspection Report 27801-0001-21(1)
August 2021
The objective of our ongoing inspection is to evaluate FNS'
oversight of TEFAP--this report provides interim results on whether FNS
identified risks related to the safe and efficient distribution of USDA
Food assistance to states during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Objective
One of the four objectives of our ongoing inspection was to
determine what risks FNS identified related to the safe and efficient
distribution of USDA Food assistance provided to states during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically: (a) did FNS accept any risk related to
the safe distribution of food assistance without implementing an
offsetting internal control?; and (b) what controls did FNS establish
to manage risks it did not accept?
Reviewed
We evaluated if FNS identified risks related to the safe and
efficient distribution of USDA food assistance provided to the states
between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020.
Recommends
We recommend that FNS develop and implement a formal process to
periodically identify, assess, and document risks that could impact the
integrity of TEFAP. FNS should also document its response to the risks
identified during its assessment and document and implement mitigation
strategies, as applicable.
What OIG Found
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that provides supplemental
food assistance to persons in need. TEFAP provides Federally purchased
commodities (USDA Foods) to states and Territories (states) to
distribute to recipient agencies serving low-income households and
individuals. TEFAP also provides administrative funds to cover states'
and recipient agencies' costs associated with the processing, storage,
and distribution of USDA Foods and foods provided through private
donations.
We concluded that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) did not
formally evaluate what impact the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic could have on the safe and efficient distribution of food
assistance to states. This occurred because FNS had not established a
formal enterprise risk management process to continuously identify and
assess risks related to TEFAP program operations, including changing
conditions that could impact the integrity of the program. Without a
formal risk management process for TEFAP, there is no assurance that
FNS periodically reviews and documents its response to the impact of
changing conditions on the safe and effective distribution of food
assistance to states. In Fiscal Year 2020, the Families First
Coronavirus Response (FFCR) and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Acts increased TEFAP funding by $850 million, with
funding totaling more than $1.2 billion, thus increasing the potential
risk that food assistance may not go to those in need.
FNS agreed with our finding and recommendations, and we accepted
management decision on both recommendations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Date: August 24, 2021
Inspection Number: 27801-0001-21(1)
To: Cindy Long, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service
Attn: Melissa Rothstein, Director, Office of Internal Controls,
Audits and Investigations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
From: Gil H. Harden, Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Subject: COVID-19--Oversight of the Emergency Food Assistance Program
This report presents the results of the subject review. Your
written response to the official draft is included in its entirety at
the end of the report. We have incorporated excerpts from your
response, and the Office of Inspector General's position, into the
relevant sections of the report. Based on your written response, we are
accepting management decision for both inspection recommendations in
the report, and no further response to this office is necessary. Please
follow your internal agency procedures in forwarding final action
correspondence to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).
In accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, final action
needs to be taken within 1 year of each management decision to prevent
being listed in the Department's annual Agency Financial Report. For
agencies other than OCFO, please follow your internal agency procedures
in forwarding final action correspondence to OCFO.
We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by
members of your staff during our audit fieldwork and subsequent
discussions. This report contains publicly available information and
will be posted in its entirety to our website (http://www.usda.gov/oig)
in the near future.
Table of Contents
Background and Objectives
Section 1: What risks has FNS identified related to the safe and
efficient distribution of USDA Food assistance provided to states
during the pandemic?
a. Did FNS accept any risk related to the safe distribution
of food assistance without implementing an offsetting internal
control?
b. What controls did FNS establish to manage risks it did not
accept?
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 2
Scope and Methodology
Abbreviations
Agency's Response
Background and Objectives
Background
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that provides supplemental
food assistance to persons in need.\1\ TEFAP provides federally
purchased commodities \2\ (USDA Foods) \3\ to states and Territories
(states) \4\ to distribute to recipient agencies \5\ serving low-income
households and individuals. TEFAP also provides administrative funds to
cover states' and recipient agencies' costs associated with the
processing, storage, and distribution of USDA Foods and foods provided
through private donations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1981, TEFAP was first authorized to distribute surplus
commodities under the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program in
order to help supplement the diets of low-income Americans, including
seniors. The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 authorized TEFAP to
provide other types of surplus foods.
\2\ Commodities include fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains,
among other foods.
\3\ The term ``commodities'' is no longer commonly used, as it has
been replaced by ``donated foods'' or ``USDA Foods.''
\4\ States are defined as all 50 states of the United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and
Northern Mariana Islands.
\5\ Recipient agencies include emergency feeding organizations,
such as food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and charitable
institutions, which receive USDA Foods and/or administrative funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers TEFAP in
collaboration with USDA's purchasing agencies: Agricultural Marketing
Service, Farm Service Agency, and Commodity Credit Corporation. At the
Federal level, FNS is responsible for allocating aid to states and for
coordinating the ordering, processing, and distribution of USDA Foods.
FNS allocates and distributes food and administrative funds \6\
according to a formula based on each state's population of low-income
and unemployed persons. State agencies \7\ administer TEFAP at the
state level. State agencies are responsible for distributing USDA Foods
and funds to recipient agencies and general oversight of the program at
the local level. Figure 1 depicts the general responsibilities of TEFAP
and the flow of USDA Foods and funds through TEFAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Funds are provided to the state and recipient agencies for the
costs associated with processing, storage, and distribution of USDA
Foods or food provided through private donations.
\7\ Examples of state agencies that administer TEFAP include
entities such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Social Services, the Department of Agriculture, or the
Department of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Flow of Food and Funds through TEFAP.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[\1\] States may distribute food to recipient agencies
directly or task recipient agencies with food distribution to
other recipient agencies. States often delegate this
responsibility to food banks.
Section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act authorizes mandatory
funding for TEFAP.\8\ In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, Congress appropriated
more than $397 million to TEFAP: $317.5 million for USDA Foods and
$79.63 million for food distribution costs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 88-525 (Aug.
1964), amended by Pub. L. No. 116-94 (Dec. 2019).
\9\ The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No.
116-94 (Dec. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic \10\ a public
health emergency for the United States. The pandemic resulted in
catastrophic loss of life and substantial damage to the global economy,
societal stability, and global security. In response to this
unprecedented global crisis, Congress and the Administration took a
series of actions, including providing additional funding for programs
serving low-income households. The Families First Coronavirus Response
(FFCR) Act,\11\ enacted on March 18, 2020, provided $400 million for
TEFAP under the Commodity Assistance Program (CAP). Furthermore, the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,\12\ enacted
on March 27, 2020, provided an additional $450 million in supplemental
funding to CAP for TEFAP. The CARES Act additionally required that
funds be used to ``prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.''
The FFCR and CARES Acts did not change TEFAP's regulatory requirements;
however, these Acts increased FY 2020 funding by $850 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered
coronavirus. On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services declared a public health emergency for the United States,
retroactive to January 27, 2020. On March 11, 2020, the World Health
Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.
\11\ Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Pub. L. No. 116-127
(Mar. 2020).
\12\ Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L.
No. 116-136 (Mar. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 depicts the TEFAP funding from the FFCR and CARES Acts.
Figure 2. FFCR and CARES Act Funding
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[For the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, enacted
March 18, 2020, $400 million under the Commodity Assistance
Program, FNS was to use the FFCR Act funds to provide food to
people in need. FNS could distribute up to $100 million of the
$400 million to U.S. states and Territories for costs
associated with distributing USDA Foods. The remaining amount
was to be made available for food costs. For the CARES Act,
enacted on March 27, 2020, $450 million under the Commodity
Assistance Program, FNS was to use the CARES Act funds to
provide food to people in need. FNS could distribute up to $150
million of the $450 million to U.S. states and Territories for
costs associated with distributing USDA Foods. The remaining
amount was to be made available for food costs.]
Objectives
One of our inspection objectives\13\ was to determine what risks
FNS identified related to the safe and efficient distribution of USDA
Food assistance provided to states during the pandemic. Specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ During the course of our inspection, we plan to issue
additional interim reports as we complete the other three objectives.
In this report, we are addressing objective 3.
a. Did FNS accept any risk related to the safe distribution of food
assistance without implementing an offsetting internal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
control?
b. What controls did FNS establish to manage risks it did not
accept?
Section 1: What risks has FNS identified related to the safe and
efficient distribution of USDA Food assistance provided to
states during the pandemic?
a. Did FNS accept any risk related to the safe distribution of food
assistance without implementing an offsetting internal control?
b. What controls did FNS establish to manage risks it did not accept?
FNS did not formally evaluate the impact the pandemic could have on
the safe and efficient distribution of food assistance to states. This
occurred because FNS had not established a formal enterprise risk
management (ERM) process to continuously identify and assess risks
related to TEFAP program operations, including changing conditions that
could impact the integrity of the program. Without a formal risk
management process for TEFAP, there is no assurance that FNS
periodically reviews and documents its response to the impact of
changing conditions on the safe and effective distribution of food
assistance to states. In FY 2020, the FFCR \14\ and CARES \15\ Acts
increased TEFAP funding by $850 million, with funding totaling more
than $1.2 billion, thus increasing the potential risk that food
assistance may not go to those in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Pub. L. No. 116-127
(Mar. 2020).
\15\ Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, Pub. L.
No. 116-136 (Mar. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-123 states
that identifying risk is a continuous and ongoing process. Agencies
must regularly review and monitor risk to identify whether risks still
exist, whether new risks have arisen, and whether the likelihood and
impact of risks have changed; report significant changes that adjust
risk priorities; and deliver assurance on the effectiveness of
controls.\16\ Furthermore, changing conditions often create new risks
or changes to existing risks that prompt management to perform a risk
assessment to identify, analyze, and respond to risks caused by these
changing conditions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ OMB, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk
Management and Internal Control, Circular A-123 (July 2016).
\17\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Sep. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB defines ERM as an effective, agency-wide approach to address
the full spectrum of significant internal and external risks by
understanding the combined impact of risks as an interrelated
portfolio, rather than addressing risks only within silos. ERM is a
part of overall organizational governance and accountability functions
and encompasses all areas where an organization is exposed to risk.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ OMB, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk
Management and Internal Control, Circular A-123 (July 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FFCR and CARES Acts increased TEFAP funding by a total of $850
million to purchase and distribute food to those in need. FNS modified
or implemented oversight controls in response to the requirements of
the CARES Act and the pandemic that:
required separate reporting of pandemic funds in its
financial reports;
prioritized the use of CARES Act funds over other funding;
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The CARES Act required funds to be used to ``prevent, prepare
for, and respond to coronavirus.'' As a result, FNS prioritized using
these funds over FFCR Act and regular TEFAP funds.
required that states provide a written justification for how
they would use additional funds to ensure they would meet the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
intent of the CARES Act;
revised its management evaluations (ME) \20\ to include
pandemic-specific questions to assess whether state agencies
complied with FNS' pandemic guidance beginning in FY 2021; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FNS regional offices conduct MEs, which include a review of
all of the state agency's program operations. This includes an
assessment of financial management, as well as compliance with
eligibility requirements, inventory controls, distribution procedures,
records and reports for TEFAP foods, and the state agencies' compliance
with its own monitoring requirements. FNS regional offices review the
five TEFAP state agencies identified as the most at risk for fraud,
waste, or abuse on an annual basis.
modified the timing of MEs and state agency monitoring
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reviews.
However, FNS did not perform a formal program-wide risk assessment
\21\ to evaluate what impact the pandemic could have on TEFAP's
operations and processes.\22\ We concluded the pandemic created
challenges for TEFAP, including difficulties in fulfilling TEFAP food
orders and delays in conducting monitoring activities. Had FNS formally
evaluated the impact of the pandemic on program operations, the agency
could have further identified ways to mitigate risks to program
integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A program-wide risk assessment encompasses all areas where an
organization is exposed to risk (financial, operational, reporting,
compliance, governance, strategic, reputation, etc.).
\22\ FNS did perform an annual risk assessment of TEFAP improper
payments, as required by the Payment Integrity Information Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivery of USDA Foods
In November 2020 \23\ and March 2021,\24\ GAO reported that FNS
faced several challenges implementing TEFAP during the pandemic. For
example, GAO reported that FNS canceled multiple TEFAP orders during
the pandemic--such as orders for canned meats, soups, and vegetables--
that left food banks without the USDA Foods they were expecting to
distribute to participants.\25\ GAO's review of FNS data disclosed that
food order cancellations were an ongoing challenge. In terms of both
estimated value and total truckload, GAO reported the magnitude of
canceled TEFAP orders was similar from March to September 2020,
compared to the same months in 2019, and canceled orders were greater
from October to December 2020, when compared to March to September
2020. We asked FNS officials if they identified canceled orders as a
risk to the program and, if so, did they implement any changes to
address this issue. FNS officials stated they had not assessed risks
related to canceled orders. However, in the fall of 2020, they began
working more closely with their procurement department to identify
additional vendors, make modifications to the list of food offerings,
and increase their involvement within the food industry to reduce the
risk of canceled orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ GAO, COVID-19: Urgent Actions Needed to Better Ensure an
Effective Federal Response, GAO-21-191 (Nov. 2020).
\24\ GAO, COVID-19: Sustained Federal Action is Crucial as Pandemic
Enters Its Second Year, GAO-21-387 (Mar. 2021).
\25\ According to GAO, FNS officials and representatives from
organizations who distribute food stated several factors contributed to
canceled TEFAP orders during the pandemic, including vendors not
bidding on a given order, supply chain issues making food unavailable,
and increasing transportation and raw materials costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight
Travel restrictions due to the pandemic prevented FNS regional
offices from completing MEs for two state agencies FNS identified as
high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse of program resources.\26\
Although FNS rescheduled these two MEs from FY 2020 to FY 2021, the
agency did not formally identify or assess potential risks caused by
postponing the MEs. For example, FNS did not formally evaluate and
document whether it should implement alternate mitigating controls--
such as a desk review of state agencies' operations--to replace or
supplement the monitoring reviews postponed due to the pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ FNS conducts an annual risk-based assessment to determine
state agencies that pose the highest risk for waste, fraud, and abuse
of TEFAP resources. Based on the results of the assessment, FNS selects
the top five states its assessment identified as presenting the highest
risk for fraud, waste, and abuse and performs a ME of those states. In
FY 2020, FNS completed three of the five MEs before the pandemic and
rescheduled the remaining two MEs to be completed in FY 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel restrictions also impacted state agencies' ability to
complete on-site monitoring of their TEFAP operations and processes.
State agencies are required to annually review recipient agencies that
participate in TEFAP.\27\ In light of the pandemic, FNS provided the
state agencies the option to delay their oversight activities and
encouraged virtual reviews to be conducted to the extent
practicable.\28\ However, FNS modified these existing controls without
performing a formal risk assessment to determine how these delays could
impact the state's ability to monitor program operations effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ These on-site reviews evaluate how organizations conduct
eligibility determinations, food ordering procedures, storage and
warehouse practices, inventory controls, and adherence to reporting and
record-keeping requirements.
\28\ According to 7 CFR 250, storage facility reviews and
physical inventory counts must be conducted on-site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERM has six essential elements that fit together to form a
continual process for managing enterprise risks. The absence of any one
of the elements would likely result in an agency incompletely
identifying and managing risk. For example, if an agency did not
monitor risks, it would have no way to ensure it successfully respond
to risks. If FNS had performed formal risk assessments as part of a
continuous risk management process (depicted in Figure 3), FNS could
have more timely identified the challenges OIG and GAO reported and may
have been able to develop and implement strategies to mitigate the
risks these challenges presented to the safe and efficient distribution
of USDA Foods to states.
Figure 3: Essential Elements of Federal Government Enterprise Risk
Management
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO-17-63.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ GAO, Enterprise Risk Management, Selected Agencies'
Experiences Illustrate Good Practices in Managing Risk, GAO-17-63 (Dec.
2016).
While we acknowledge that FNS modified oversight controls in
response to the pandemic, the agency did not conduct a comprehensive,
formal risk assessment of all aspects of TEFAP, including an assessment
of FNS's TEFAP operations and processes and an assessment of the impact
that changing conditions caused by the pandemic and an increase in
Federal funding could have on TEFAP operations. Although we noted FNS
modified program operations in response to the pandemic, FNS officials
shared they did not formally identify and document the risks of these
modifications to the effective oversight of TEFAP. As a result, FNS
cannot ensure that the oversight controls it modified did not create
additional risks that FNS should have mitigated and that all risks to
TEFAP operations are identified and assessed. FNS needs to conduct and
document a formal risk assessment of TEFAP, including evaluating the
impact of the pandemic on its operations. In addition, to ensure FNS
appropriately uses current and future TEFAP funds, FNS needs to
document any determinations regarding whether it is willing to accept
risks to program integrity or identify and implement additional
internal controls to mitigate risks.
Recommendation 1
Develop and implement a formal process to periodically identify,
assess, and document risks, beyond improper payments, that could impact
the integrity of TEFAP. This should include a comprehensive assessment
of all aspects of TEFAP, including those that would arise as a result
of changes in operations due to a significant event.
Agency Response
In its August 13, 2021, response, FNS stated:
FNS concurs with this recommendation and will work to develop
and implement a formal process to periodically identify,
assess, and document risks that could affect the integrity of
TEFAP, including those that would arise as a result of changes
in operation due to a significant event such as the COVID-19
pandemic. Though risk assessment is built into routine program
operations and did inform FNS' response to the pandemic, we
recognize that we do not have a formal risk evaluation process
in place in which known risks, responses to risks, and
mitigation strategies are documented and formally evaluated.
Moving forward, we will implement a formal ERM process using
the Office of Management and Budget's Management Responsibility
for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control, Circular
A-123 as a guide. We recognize that such an assessment is a
best practice in program administration and will help to ensure
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
FNS provided an estimated completion date of May 1, 2022, for this
action.
OIG Position
We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Recommendation 2
Document FNS' response to the risks identified during its
assessment. Document and implement mitigation strategies, as
applicable.
Agency Response
In its August 13, 2021, response, FNS stated:
FNS concurs with this recommendation. The ERM process that
will be developed and implemented will include a process for
documenting FNS' response to any risks identified during the
risk assessment and any corresponding mitigation strategies
that will need to be put into place. In many cases, the process
to document risks and mitigation strategies will simply be an
articulation of known risks and strategies that FNS already has
in place; however, we recognize that a formal process may yield
different solutions or strategies than what FNS has already
implemented for TEFAP.
FNS provided an estimated completion date of August 1, 2022, for
this action.
OIG Position
We accept management decision for this recommendation.
Scope and Methodology
Our inspection scope covered the period of March 1, 2020, through
October 31, 2020. We conducted our fieldwork on Objective 3 from
November 2020 through June 2021.
To accomplish Objective 3, we:
Obtained and reviewed applicable laws, policies, procedures,
and regulations relating to TEFAP, FFCR Act and CARES Act;
Reviewed GAO Reports to Congressional Committees: ``COVID-
19: Urgent Actions Needed to Better Ensure an Effective Federal
Response'' (November 2020) and ``COVID-19: Sustained Federal
Action is Crucial as Pandemic Enters Its Second Year'' (March
2021);
Interviewed FNS officials and reviewed written responses to
our questions;
Reviewed and evaluated FNS' FY 2020 TEFAP improper payment
risk assessment;
Identified and reviewed controls implemented by FNS in
response to the FFCR and CARES Acts; and
Reviewed FNS' process for conducting MEs, including FNS'
risk-based assessment for selecting states for ME reviews and
the ME module.
We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency's Quality Standards for
Inspection and Evaluation.\30\ Those standards require that we obtain
sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on our
inspection objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our finding, conclusions, and recommendations
based on our inspection objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency,
Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation (Dec. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations
CAP Commodity Assistance Program
CARES Act Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019
ERM Enterprise Risk Management
FFCR Act Family First Coronavirus Response Act
FNS Food and Nutrition Service
FY fiscal year
GAO Government Accountability Office
ME management evaluation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
TEFAP The Emergency Food Assistance Program
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
Agency's Response
FNS' Response to Audit Report
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Date: August 13, 2021
Inspection Number: 27801-0001-21(1)
To: Gil H. Harden, Assistant Inspector General for Audit
From: Cindy Long, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service
Subject: Interim Report, COVID-19: Oversight of The Emergency Food
Assistance Program
This letter responds to the interim report official draft for
inspection number 27801-0001-21(1), COVID-19: Oversight of The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Specifically, the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) is responding to the two recommendations in the
report.
FNS supports the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) objectives to
assess the controls FNS has in place to monitor and evaluate risk in
TEFAP. Such exercises only serve to bolster and improve the effective
and efficient administration of the program. As the COVID-19 pandemic
has demonstrated, TEFAP's vast network of food banks, food pantries,
soup kitchens, and other local agencies are a lifeline for low-income
Americans in need of emergency food assistance. We appreciate OIG's due
diligence in helping to ensure that TEFAP remains a stable and reliable
source of food assistance for those in need under any circumstances
that may arise.
OIG Recommendation 1
Develop and implement a formal process to periodically identify,
assess, and document risks, beyond improper payments, that could impact
the integrity of TEFAP. This should include a comprehensive assessment
of all aspects of TEFAP, including those that would arise as a result
of changes in operations due to a significant event.
FNS Response
FNS concurs with this recommendation and will work to develop and
implement a formal process to periodically identify, assess, and
document risks that could affect the integrity of TEFAP, including
those that would arise as a result of changes in operation due to a
significant event such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Though risk assessment
is built into routine program operations and did inform FNS' response
to the pandemic, we recognize that we do not have a formal risk
evaluation process in place in which known risks, responses to risks,
and mitigation strategies are documented and formally evaluated. Moving
forward, we will implement a formal enterprise risk management (ERM)
process using the Office of Management and Budget's Management
Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control,
Circular A-123 as a guide. We recognize that such an assessment is a
best practice in program administration and will help to ensure the
effective and efficient administration of the program.
Estimated Completion Date
May 1, 2022.
OIG Recommendation 2
Document FNS' response to the risks identified during its
assessment. Document and implement mitigation strategies, as
applicable.
FNS Response
FNS concurs with this recommendation. The ERM process that will be
developed and implemented will include a process for documenting FNS'
response to any risks identified during the risk assessment and any
corresponding mitigation strategies that will need to be put into
place. In many cases, the process to document risks and mitigation
strategies will simply be an articulation of known risks and strategies
that FNS already has in place; however, we recognize that a formal
process may yield different solutions or strategies than what FNS has
already implemented for TEFAP.
Estimated Completion Date
August 1, 2022.
Learn more about USDA OIG
Visit our website: www.usda.gov/oig/index.htm
Follow us on Twitter: @OIGUSDA
How to Report Suspected Wrongdoing in USDA Programs Fraud, Waste,
and Abuse
File complaint online: www.usda.gov/oig/hotline.htm
Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. ET
In Washington, D.C. 202-690-1622
Outside D.C. 800-424-9121
TDD (Call Collect) 202-690-1202
Bribes or Gratuities
202-720-7257 (24 hours)
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and
policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and
institutions participating in or administering USDA programs
are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including
gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age,
marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a
public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or
retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or
activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to
all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by
program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of
communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact
the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay
Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information
may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA
Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA
office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the
letter all of the information requested in the form. To request
a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your
completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-
9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
program.intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
______
Submitted Statement by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress
from Nebraska; on Behalf of Metz Culinary Management, Inc.
[Madam Chairwoman] and Members of this Committee, thank you for
holding this critical hearing to receive comments and review the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) food distribution programs. Metz
Culinary Management appreciates the opportunity to provide additional
details on how our company offers nutritious, ready-to-eat, frozen,
shelf-stable meals through USDA's food and nutrition programs. In
addition, we are extremely interested in working with the Committee to
examine how these meals can be leveraged and expanded within USDA's
food and nutrition programs to address growing needs and gaps
surrounding COVID-19, senior feeding, culturally diverse meals, and
emergency feeding.
Metz Culinary Management, Inc. is a family-owned company
established in 1994 to provide restaurant-inspired hospitality to
public and independent schools, senior nutrition programs, higher
education institutes, health care facilities, and corporate dining.
Headquartered in Dallas, PA, and with significant culinary and catering
centers throughout Florida and recently in Sarasota, FL. Metz Culinary
Management employs 1,500 full-time employees directly involved in their
food-service businesses and over 7,000 in related services.
Metz Culinary Management has been a leader in nutrition,
establishing programs that enhance the well-being of students, school
faculty, and staff, and has provided meals through USDA school lunch
programs and the Older Americans Act since 1994. Menus designed to
incentivize healthy eating habits and nutrition education have been a
priority and early focus. In addition, our experience in government
commodities programs and school nutrition compliance enables school
districts to make the most of their budgets while addressing local
needs and preferences.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Metz has taken actions to
address the challenges and dangers of COVID-19 to ensure the safety and
nutrition of its meals provided through Federal food and nutrition
programs. For example, Metz Culinary Management collaborated with local
school districts to implement delivery of meals to pick-up locations
and for curbside delivery. Also, special meals for delivery to
residents and alternative dining settings have been established to
address safety issues surrounding congregate settings. Finally, mobile
kitchens have provided maximum flexibility and enabled meals to be
delivered in remote areas not generally served to allow for more
efficient meal distribution. Metz is extremely excited about the
potential to expand upon these services and protocols for our ready-to-
eat frozen meals to broaden and leverage assistance through appropriate
USDA feeding programs.
The Commodity Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations serve populations that would benefit
significantly from nutritionally balanced and culturally appropriate
ready-to-eat frozen meals. In addition, such meals can be designed to
address unique nutrition needs and even medically tailored to address
underlying medical conditions. Similarly, the Emergency Food Assistance
Program also provides opportunities to leverage frozen ready-to-eat
shelf-stable meals to address gaps and provide targeted assistance to
families and children throughout the school year.
Metz has received input from local food banks interested in ready-
to-eat meals. If approved under USDA food and nutrition programs and
added to Food Available Lists for purchase, such meals could address
gaps that confront food banks in serving vulnerable nutritionally at-
risk populations, including seniors, Native Americans, ethnic
minorities, and children and families. In particular, food banks have
commented on how ready-to-eat shelf-stable frozen meals could be
leveraged and expanded to address unique feeding and nutrition needs
for seniors, disabled individuals, culturally diverse populations, and
homebound individuals.
As the Committee continues to examine how to tackle the many
challenges surrounding food insecurity, we offer our assistance and
support. We believe that expanding frozen shelf-stable ready-to-eat
meal options designed to meet the specific nutrition and cultural needs
of USDA's food and nutrition program recipients should be a priority.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to provide comments and
stand ready to support the Committee in its essential role in feeding
America and ensuring nutritious meals to those in need.
______
Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress
from Florida
Response from Carlos M. Rodriguez, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Community FoodBank of New Jersey
Question 1. Mr. Rodriguez, SNAP is a program your organization has
praised at length. In fact, your parent organization has testified
before this Committee that ``for every meal delivered through TEFAP,
SNAP delivers nine to a family in need.'' If that is the case, why
don't we simply zero out TEFAP and focus our efforts on SNAP, a program
which by your own organization's admission, can deliver more to
Americans in need?
Answer. Thank you for this question. SNAP and TEFAP both play
important roles in providing food assistance to individuals and
families in need, and work together to address different aspects of
short-term and longer-term need for food assistance. As the program is
designed, TEFAP is meant to provide emergency food assistance to
provide food for families in need most immediately. Sometimes, one food
distribution is enough to meet the short-term food assistance needs of
individuals and families. Other times, more long-term assistance is
needed. When families and individuals need more than episodic
assistance from our food bank, we let them know about other programs
they might be eligible for, such as SNAP, that can more effectively
provide long term food assistance, and if requested provide information
on eligibility and how to sign up for SNAP.
Unfortunately, there are some families that need help from SNAP as
well as charitable food assistance to make sure their families don't go
without food. This is not surprising, given that SNAP is meant to
provide only supplemental nutrition assistance each month.
I also want to point out that 32% of food-insecure individuals earn
incomes above 185% of the Federal poverty level, meaning they are
likely income ineligible for SNAP, and in some states TEFAP as well.
Food banks play a critical role for millions of working families and
individuals that make too much for assistance from federal programs yet
too little to assure food security for themselves and their families.
Question 2. Mr. Rodriguez, your organization also actively pushed
for the Biden Administration to discontinue the Farmers to Families
Food Box Program. It was in part due to your organization's efforts
that the program was ended. Can you provide me with the reasons for why
Feeding America opposed this program?
Answer. The Farmers to Families Food Box Program provided a
critical source of short-term food relief for our food bank and other
food banks and food pantries across the country. It is my understanding
that the program was ended in large part due to a combination of a lack
of additional funds and the restaurant industry opening again and
purchasing from growers and producers that had needed support in 2020.
The goal of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program was to provide
much needed support to farmers, growers, and distributors who were
impacted by the sudden shift in consumer eating habits and the shutdown
of restaurants and other eating establishments at the start of the
pandemic, and to connect this nutritious food with people in need.
The Feeding America food bank network distributed approximately 25%
of the 132 million food boxes provided through the program from May-
December 2020. However, this distribution was not equitable across
communities in need and our food bank network due to a lack of a
comprehensive distribution plan among contracted distributors. Were a
program like this to be considered again, we propose the following
recommendations:
Provide increased accountability for any future Farmers to
Families Food Box Program by requiring distributors to
distribute the food in an equitable manner nationwide through
USDA Food Distributions Programs like TEFAP to emergency
feeding organizations.
Provide support for emergency food organizations for
distribution costs by providing storage and distribution grants
directly to the organizations per truckload of food received.
Provide a steady supply of ready-to-load commodities to food
banks to help meet demand. Both growers and food banks would
benefit from knowing how long additional food purchase support
from USDA could last so that they can plan accordingly and
understand the impact of the program. This would allow food
banks to plan with other partners to source additional food as
needed.
The Farmers to Families Food Box Program provided food
quickly but was not as efficient or effective as it could be in
distributing food to people in need. We recommend a program
that provides food quickly during a supply chain crisis, but
that operates through existing distribution channels to ensure
equitable distribution across the country, predictable
deliveries, and safe food handling.
Question 3. Now Mr. Rodriguez, your Feeding America's CEO, last I
checked, made close to $1 million in 2019, well above the average
salary of most nonprofit CEOs. Can you explain why the leadership of an
organization that claims to be about relief for those in need,
regularly makes close to and--in years past--over $1 million a year?
Answer. Feeding America follows IRS recommendations that nonprofits
follow a three step process to determine that executive compens[a]tion
is reasonable and not excessive. Feeding America executive compensation
is determined by the executive compensation committee of the board of
directors, which also utilizes the advice of independent advisors.
These independent advisors conduct a total compensation market review
process each year that provides an opinion as to the reasonableness of
Feeding America's compensation levels in relation to market norms. In
addition, Feeding America scores a 97.87 out of 100 on Charity
Navigator,\1\ indicating that donors can give with confidence that the
funds will be spent effectively. Feeding America spends 98.7% of total
expenses on program operations and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Feeding America
Donate To This Charity \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=my.donations.makedonation&ein=363673599.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multipurpose Human Service Organizations D EIN: 36-3673599 D Chicago IL
Mission: Feeding America' is the largest hunger-relief
organization in the United States. Through a network of more than 200
food banks, 21 statewide food bank associations, and over 60,000
partner agencies, food pantries and meal programs, we helped provide
6.6 billion meals to tens of millions of people in need last year.
Feeding America also supports programs that prevent food waste and
improve food security among the people we serve; brings attention to
the social and systemic barriers that contribute to food insecurity in
our nation; and advocates for legislation that protects people from
going hungry.
Feeding America is a 501(c)(3) organization, with an IRS ruling
year of 1990, and donations are tax-deductible.
Is this your nonprofit? Access your Star Rating Portal to submit
data and edit your profile.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=my.nonprofit.update&orgid=5271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Information
http://www.feedingamerica.org/
161 North Clark Street, Suite 700, Chicago IL 60601
800-771-2303
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Important note on the timeliness of ratings
The IRS is significantly delayed in processing nonprofits' annual
tax filings (Forms 990). As a result, the Financial and Accountability
& Transparency score for Feeding America is outdated and the overall
rating may not be representative of its current operations. Please
check with the charity directly for any questions you may have.
You are viewing this organization's new Charity Navigator profile
page. To view the legacy version, click here.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5271&oldpage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Rating System by Charity Navigator
Charity Navigator evaluates a nonprofit organization's financial
health including measures of stability, efficiency and sustainability.
We also track accountability and transparency policies to ensure the
good governance and integrity of the organization.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exceptional
This charity's score is 97.87, earning it a 4-Star rating. Donors
can ``Give with Confidence'' to this charity.
This score is calculated from two sub-scores:
Finance: 100.00
Accountability & Transparency: 97.00
This score represents Form 990 data from 2020, the latest year
published by the IRS.
View this organization's historical ratings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#historical-
ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Star Rated Report
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Program Expense Ratio
98.6%
Expenses: 3 Year Average
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Editor's note: this is an interactive graphic.
The Program Expense Ratio is determined by Program Expenses divided
by Total Expense (average of most recent three 990s).
This measure reflects the percent of its total expenses a charity
spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a
charity's average program expenses by its average total functional
expenses yields this percentage. We calculate the charity's average
expenses over its three most recent fiscal years.
Source: IRS Form 990.
Additional Information
Total Revenue and Expenses--Data Available \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#total-revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary of Key Persons--Data Available \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#Salary-of-Key-
Persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS Published Data (Business Master File)--Data Available \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#bmf-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Sources (IRS Forms 990) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#data-source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Ratings--Data Available \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#historical-
ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unscored
Total Revenue and Expenses
This chart displays the trend of revenue and expenses over the past
several years for this organization, as reported on their IRS Form 990.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Editor's note: this is an interactive graphic.
Impact & Results
This score estimates the actual impact a nonprofit has on the lives
of those it serves, and determines whether it is making good use of
donor resources to achieve that impact.
Impact & Results Score
100 out of 100
Feeding America is, earning a passing score. This score has no
effect on the organization's Star Rating.
Impact
$2 provides a meal to a person in need.
Do you work at Feeding America? Join the waitlist for an updated
Impact & Results score.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/portal.
Impact & Results Report 100 of 100 points
Rated Program \11\ Program
\11\ https://
www.charitynavigator.org/ein/
363673599#impact-rated-program.
Outcomes and Cost \12\ Food Procurement
\12\ https://
www.charitynavigator.org/ein/
363673599#OutcomesCost-content.
Impact and Determination \13\ Activities
\13\ https://
www.charitynavigator.org/ein/
363673599#determination-content.
Analysis Details \14\ The nonprofit collects, warehouses
and distributes food to front-
line organizations like food
pantries and soup kitchens.
\14\ https://
www.charitynavigator.org/ein/
363673599#analysis-details-content.
Program Type
Beneficiaries Served
Program Geography
Time Period of Data
Learn how we assess the impact of
nonprofits. \15\
\15\ https://
www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=809
1.
Additional Information Unscored
Largest Programs
Feeding America reported its three
largest programs on its FY 2020
Form 990 as:
$3,148,701,711 Spent in most 96% Percent of program expenses
recent FY
Food Procurement
$94,742,225 Spent in most recent 2% Percent of program expenses
FY
Member Services
$12,811,564 Spent in most recent 0% Percent of program expenses
FY
Research and Evaluation
Leadership & Adaptability
This score provides an assessment of the organization's leadership
capacity, strategic thinking and planning, and ability to innovate or
respond to changes in constituent demand/need or other relevant social
and economic conditions to achieve the organization's mission.
Leadership & Adaptability Score
Not Currently Scored
Feeding America is currently not eligible for a Leadership &
Adaptability score because we have not received its L&A survey
responses.
Note: The absence of a score does not indicate a positive or
negative assessment, it only indicates that the organization has not
yet submitted data for evaluation.
Additional Information
Unscored
Organization Leadership
Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, Chief Executive Officer
Gary Rodkin, Board Chair
Culture & Community
This score provides an assessment of the organization's culture and
connectedness to the community it serves. Learn more about how and why
we rate Culture & Community.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=8563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Culture & Community Score
99 out of 100
Feeding America has earned a passing score. This score has no
effect on the organization's Star Rating. The organization provided
data about how it listens to constituents (Constituent Feedback) and
its Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) practices (see report below).
The Culture & Community Beacon is comprised of the following
metrics:
Constituent Feedback: 100/100 (30% of beacon score)
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion: 98/100 (70% of beacon score)
Culture & Community Report
99 of 100 points
Constituent Feedback--Data Available (100/100 Points) \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#culture-
constituent-voice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion--Data Available (98/100
Points) \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#culture-dei.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis and Research \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/363673599#culture-coming-
soon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constituent Feedback
100/100 points
30% of beacon score
This organization reported that it is collecting feedback from the
constituents and/or communities it serves. Charity Navigator believes
nonprofit organizations that engage in inclusive practices, such as
collecting feedback from the people and communities they serve, may be
more effective.
View this organization's Constituent Feedback Practices
Who are the people you serve with your mission? Describe briefly.
Our mission is to advance change in America by ensuring
equitable access to nutritious food for all in partnership with
food banks, policymakers, supporters, and the communities we
serve. Millions of children and families living in America face
hunger and food insecurity every day. Due to the effects of the
coronavirus pandemic, more than 42 million people may
experience food insecurity, including a potential 13 million
children. The pandemic has most impacted families that were
already facing hunger or one paycheck away from facing hunger.
According to the USDA's latest Household Food Insecurity in the
United States report, more than 35 million people in the United
States experienced hunger in 2019. Households with children are
more likely to experience food insecurity.
How is your organization collecting feedback from the people you
serve?
SMS text surveys, Electronic surveys (by email, tablet,
etc.), Focus groups or interviews (by phone or in person),
Paper surveys, Case management notes, Community meetings or
town halls, Constituent (client or resident, etc.) advisory
committees, Suggestion box/email
How is your organization using feedback from the people you serve?
To identify and remedy poor client service experiences, To
make fundamental changes to our programs and/or operations, To
inform the development of new programs/projects, To strengthen
relationships with the people we serve
With whom does your organization share the feedback you got from the
people you serve?
Our staff, Our board, Our funders, Our community partners
How has asking for feedback from the people you serve changed your
relationship with them or shifted power--over decisions,
resources, rules or in other ways--to them?
Future plans are still being developed but the first phase
resulted in a portfolio of prioritized concepts that we will be
further co-developing, testing and implementing in partnership
with the network. One concept includes embedding benefit
enrollment in existing digital neighbor touchpoints like
OrderAhead to make seeking charitable food and enrolling in
benefits seamless.
What challenges does your organization face in collecting feedback
from the people you serve?
We don't have the right technology to collect and aggregate
feedback efficiently, Staff find it hard to prioritize feedback
collection and review due to lack of time
Briefly describe a recent change that your organization made in
response to feedback from the people you serve.
Feeding America is committed to delivering an equitable and
dignified experience to the people we serve. In January, we
completed phase one of ``Reimagining the Neighbor Experience,''
an initiative to develop a multi-year roadmap of solutions to
enhance the charitable food experience, in partnership with the
people we serve, member food banks and agencies. We used a
design-research approach, keeping neighbors' voices and
experiences at the center of this work through in-depth
interviews and diary studies, with a focus on communities of
color. The research explored our neighbors' current journeys
and experiences with food-both from charitable and other
sources-to inspire and inform how the charitable food
experience needs to evolve to meet their needs.
Methodology
We've partnered with Candid to survey organizations about their
feedback practices. Nonprofit organizations can fill out the How We
Listen section of their Candid profile \20\ to receive a rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ http://guidestar.candid.org/update-nonprofit-profile/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn more about the methodology.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=8563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[all]