[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-24673] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: October 6, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Part 246 Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); Food Funding Formula Rule AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations governing funding and funds allocation procedures for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in order to simplify and update the funding process in anticipation of a fully funded program. The amendments provide a greater share of funds to State agencies receiving comparatively less than their fair share of funds based on their WIC income eligible population, provide all State agencies with stability funding, adjusted for inflation, to the extent funds are available, and simplify the food funding allocation process by eliminating obsolete features. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on October 1, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah McIntosh, Chief, Program Analysis and Monitoring Branch, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2710. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Pursuant to that review, the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has certified that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule affects how the Department will calculate food grant allocations for WIC State agencies. Paperwork Reduction Act No new data collection or recordkeeping requiring Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paper Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3502) are included in this final rule. Executive Order 12372 The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under 10.557 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule-related notice published June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29114)). Executive Order 12778 This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any state or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect unless so specified in the ``Effective Date'' paragraph of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. In the WIC Program, the administrative procedures are as follows: (1) local agencies and vendors--State agency hearing procedures issued pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 246.18; (2) applicants and participants--State agency hearing procedures issued pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 246.9; (3) sanctions against State agencies (but not claims for repayment assessed against a State agency) pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 246.19--administrative appeal in accordance with 7 CFR Sec. 246.22; and (4) procurement by State or local agencies--administrative appeal to the extent required by 7 CFR Sec. 3016.36. Background The WIC Program has consistently demonstrated its effectiveness in promoting the health and nutritional well-being of low-income women, infants and children at nutritional or medical risk, and has experienced large increases in its appropriation for the last several years. Due to its success, the WIC Program is likely to soon achieve ``full funding'' whereby it is estimated that all eligible women, infants and children who apply could obtain program benefits. In moving toward the full funding objective, the Department finds that its current food funding formula presents impediments to funding equity and is so complex it is difficult to execute and predict its results. Historically, WIC has never had enough funds to serve all who are in need of, and eligible for, its benefits. Certain State agencies receive levels of funding that allow them to serve more of their eligible populations than others. The concept of full funding for WIC, as set forth by the Administration, does not guarantee unlimited funds nor does it establish the WIC Program as a federal entitlement program. As before, WIC must manage within a finite appropriation level. However, a fully funded WIC Program implies that the appropriation level will more adequately provide for all eligible persons who apply for benefits, and that each State agency should have an equal chance to serve their eligible population. Currently, many State agencies are serving lesser proportions of their WIC-eligible population than other State agencies. Therefore, the formula must support growth among State agencies which are now funded to serve a lesser proportion of their eligible population, as well as allocate funds fairly among all State agencies under a stable, fully funded program. Therefore, to better prepare the WIC Program for full funding, the Department published a proposed rule on June 8, 1994 to revise the food funding formula in order to meet three major objectives: 1) to provide a greater share of funds to State agencies receiving comparatively less than their fair share of funds based on their WIC income eligible population; 2) to simplify the food funding formula and delete obsolete components; and 3) to maintain current services to eligible participants that State agencies are serving to the extent funds are available. The proposed rule provided for a 60-day comment period, which ended on August 8, 1994. Thirty-six comment letters were received from a variety of sources, including State and local agencies, advocacy groups and other public interest groups. The Department has given all comments careful consideration in the development of this final rule and would like to thank all commenters who responded to the proposal. Assumptions Under Full Funding As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, full funding is not intended to replace or discourage efficient and effective program management. Accordingly, mandatory cost containment efforts recently undertaken must continue, and additional voluntary cost containment efforts are encouraged. Funds will continue to be allocated based on a national average food package cost as an incentive for State agencies to manage their food package costs more efficiently to serve more eligibles. Finally the commitment to WIC full funding can only be met if States continue to utilize risk-related eligibility criteria that are based on sound medical, nutritional and preventive health research. Income eligibility alone is not a sufficient condition for program eligibility. Funding Formula Objectives The funding process should assure each State agency a grant that allows it an equal opportunity to serve its fair share of eligible persons seeking WIC service by providing a food package suited to the participant's unique nutritional deficiencies, not to exceed the maximum food benefit allowed under regulations. This rule establishes a funding formula to meet this overall goal. The following is a discussion of each provision, as proposed, comments received on the proposal, and an explanation of the provisions set forth in this final rule. 1. Section 246.16(c)(1) Allocation Formula--Use of participation data in the formula. The Department proposed to revise Section 246.16(c)(1) to eliminate the use of priority participation data or data reflecting State-funded participation for imputing the figures needed for the targeting components of the formula described in Section 246.16 (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(1)(ii)(A). All commenters on this provision supported it as proposed. Therefore, the provision remains unchanged from the proposed rule. 2. Section 246.16(c)(3)(i) Allocation of stability funds. Currently, in allocating funds to State agencies, first priority is given to maintaining each State's operating level as ``stability funding''. The stability component of a State agency's allocation is initially based on the amount of food funds received by each State agency in the prior fiscal year, adjusted to restore 50 percent of any grant funds voluntarily returned in the prior year. This base level is then adjusted to account for a portion of the inflation estimated for the upcoming fiscal year (except that Indian State agencies receive a full inflation adjustment). The proposed formula retained this component with some modification. The principle of stability was maintained to help assure that each State agency would receive enough funds to support its current participation level. However, the proposed rule deleted the provision allowing a State agency the option to retain 50 percent of funds it returns before July 16 of any given year as a part of its stability grant the next fiscal year. The majority of commenters addressing this issue opposed the provision and stated that the current 50 percent recovery credit should be maintained. The commenters indicated that eliminating the credit would be a disincentive for State agencies to return funds, thereby delaying the reallocation of unspent funds. Several commenters suggested maintaining the 50 percent credit for one year only. A few commenters were strongly in support of the provision to delete the 50 percent recovery credit. The 50 percent credit was originally intended as an incentive for a State agency to return food funds that it could not spend, thereby making those funds available for reallocation to State agencies that needed additional funds. However, almost all State agencies which have elected to return funds under this provision have been those which were in danger of failing to spend at least 95 percent of their allocated food funds. Failure to achieve this expenditure level results in a specific decrease in the amount of food funds in the subsequent fiscal year. In these instances, State agencies simply returned the amount of funds necessary to ensure expenditures of at least 95 percent of their adjusted food grants. The Department no longer believes restoration of 50 percent of returned funds to State agencies in the next year is prudent. The restoration of these funds makes it possible for a State agency already receiving its fair share funding to retain funds it does not need. In addition, the credit effectively increases stability grants in the subsequent year by 150 percent of the amount of funds returned, since the State agencies returning funds receive a 50 percent credit in the subsequent year's stability grant, while the State agencies to which the returned funds are reallocated have their subsequent year's stability grants increased by the full amount of the reallocation. If there are increases in appropriation levels for the subsequent year, this additional liability can be funded. However, if funds in the subsequent year are not adequate to meet all stability grants, all State agencies share in a grant decrease to accommodate the 50 percent credit. Accordingly, to ensure equity, the 50 percent recovery credit is deleted in this rule. 3. Section 246.16 (c)(3)(i)(A) Inflation adjustment. The current food funding formula uses a calculation referred to as the ``targeted inflation factor''. It was designed to provide an inflation adjustment proportionate to a State agency's service to the highest priority participants. Under this process, the full inflation increase is adjusted according to each State agency's percentage of participants in the top three priority level categories (Priority I-III women, infants and children at nutritional or medical risk). For instance, if 75 percent of a State agency's participation was in the Priority I to III participation categories, and the full inflation rate was 4 percent, that State agency would receive a targeted inflation rate of 3 percent applied against its prior year grant to determine its stability grant. An exception is made for Indian State agencies which receive full inflation. The proposed rule took a more straight-forward approach by providing all State agencies with a full inflationary increase as long as funds are adequate to do so. If, however, the appropriation for any given year is insufficient to support prior year grant levels plus full inflation, the proposed funding formula would reduce State agency grants to allow for funds allocation within available funding. Those State agencies with under fair share allocations would receive first priority for any available inflationary increases, and State agencies at or above their fair share allocation for that fiscal year would receive second priority. The proposal sought to assure continued progress in increasing the grants of States that are under their fair share. All of the commenters addressing this issue were opposed to this provision. The consensus was that if funds were insufficient to provide full inflationary increases, then all State agencies should take a prorata reduction for that fiscal year. The commenters were opposed to the two-tier concept and stated that small reductions in all State agency grants would be less disruptive to WIC operations than large cuts to a few State agencies. The Department is persuaded by the concerns raised by commenters on this aspect of the proposed rule. Therefore, Section 246.6 (c)(3)(ii) in this final rule provides that in the event that funds are insufficient to support prior year grant levels plus full inflation, all state agencies would take a prorata reduction for that fiscal year. 4. Section 246.16 (c)(3)(i)(B) Migrant set-aside. Section 17(g)(4) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(g)(4)) provides that not less than 9/10 of one percent of the funds appropriated for the WIC Program be available first for services to migrant women, infants and children. The current regulations stipulated that the full 9/10 of one percent set-aside is to be subtracted from all States' stability grants and then added to stability grants of States that report serving migrants. Because these adjustments for the migrant set-aside become part of the base grant of stability funds for the next fiscal year, FNS found that stability grants were skewed over time, directly causing some State agencies to receive more than their fair share of funds while preventing other States from receiving their fair share. This distorting effect becomes even larger as over-all funding increases. The rule proposed that for State agencies that serve migrants, a portion of the grant be designated for service to the migrant population. The designated amount would be based on prior year migrant participation reported by each State agency. By designating a target funding level, the migrant grant will not distort subsequent grant allocations, yet will establish service to this needy population as a priority. This is an approach similar to the one employed to target expenditures for breastfeeding promotion and support. The Department believes that State agencies must estimate and accommodate such changes according to the information available from State and local sources. Therefore, it was proposed that, for planning purposes, expenditure targets would be established for both food grants and nutrition services and administration grants to insure that \9/10\ of one percent of the appropriation is made available for service to migrants. State agencies would be expected to plan for migrant participants as now required in their State Plan of Operation and give priority service to migrant participants that arrive from another State agency seeking WIC services. Most of the commenters supported this provision. However, two commenters thought the proposed change was unclear and implied additional reporting requirements. In addition, it was suggested that the methodology to be used be clarified. The Department is not imposing any additional reporting requirements regarding migrant participants. State agencies will continue to report migrant participation as in past years. For purposes of clarity, the Department has deleted the last sentence in section 246.16(c)(3)(iv) of the proposed regulation which erroneously implied that migrant funds would be deducted from the State agency's stability allocation. Since this was not the intent of the regulation, this language was removed for clarification. The remainder of section 246.16(c)(3)(iv), which designates a migrant service expenditure target, is adopted final as proposed. 5. Section 246.16(c)(3)(ii) Allocation of residual funds. Under the current rule, any funds remaining after stability grants are allocated are ``residual funds''. Residual funds are allocated under two components--``targeting'' and ``growth''. The Department proposed eliminating the targeting component and modifying the growth component as discussed below. ``Targeting'' Component for Food Funds (Section 246.16(c)(3)(ii)(A)) As explained in detail in the preamble, the targeting component is no longer needed to encourage service to Priority I participants, and is a barrier to achieving funding equity among State agencies. Therefore, the Department proposed the elimination of the targeting component to simplify the formula, and ensure greater funding equity based on each State agency's eligible population. All of the commenters on this provision supported it, and the final rule retains the provision that would eliminate targeting as a consideration in funds allocation. However, five commenters stated that they would oppose the provision unless all States were guaranteed prior year funding levels plus full inflation if funds are available. In the event that funds are insufficient, the commenters wanted a prorata reduction for all States. These concerns were addressed above in the discussion of the stability allocation (Section 246.16(c)(3)(ii)). ``Growth'' Component for Food Funds (Section 246.16(c)(3)(ii)(B)) Under the current formula, after targeting funds are allocated, the remaining half of residual funds are allocated for ``growth'' within State agencies that have less opportunity to serve their eligible population compared to other State agencies. Growth funds are allocated based primarily on a ``fair share'' concept similar to that discussed earlier. To determine fair share funding, FNS used a mathematical equation to create an estimate of each State's eligible WIC population. The estimate began with each State agency's number of income eligibles, currently extracted from decennial census data. The estimate is adjusted slightly to account for State agency variations in infant mortality and low birth weight rates (``health indicators''). Also, women, infants and children served by the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) are subtracted from this estimate for those States in which CSFP operates. As explained below, the Department proposed retaining the ``growth'' component of the formula using only the estimate of income eligibles (with some adjustments) and deleting the use of health indicators. It was believed that this best defines each State agency's actual need for program funds and greatly simplifies the ``fair share'' equation. Each component and revision of the eligibles database for the fair share allocation provided in Section 246.16(c)(3)(ii) is discussed below. Income Eligibles. Each State agency's estimate of WIC income eligible persons is based on data from the 1990 Decennial Census, which reflects population characteristics as of 1989. Although the Census data provides the most current State-by-State information, the Department recognizes that data which describe a population at a fixed point in the past may not accurately reflect recent and future socioeconomic and demographic trends. Accordingly, the Department is currently exploring other potential data sources for the state-level income eligibles estimates. The proposed rule did not establish or define the exact source of the eligibles database in order to allow for the use of the most timely and reliable data as it becomes available. This was supported by the majority of commenters who commented on the eligibles data. Under the proposed rule, fair share funding allocations would be based on estimates of the State agency's eligible population at or below 185 percent of poverty rather than estimates of the fully- eligible population (persons income eligible and at nutritional risk). Unlike the national estimate of eligibles, State agency allocations are not adjusted for an estimate of fully eligible persons as nutritional risk standards vary by State agency and application of a ``national'' estimate would serve no useful purpose for funding allocation purposes. The State level income-eligible estimates were used to determine each State's proportion of the national total of WIC income-eligibles. Funding allocations are based on this proportion--not on the absolute number of estimated income eligibles in each State. Each State agency's fair share allocation thus depends on both its proportion of income eligibles and the total amount of funds available nationally. Most commenters stated that they concur with the proposed ``fair share'' concept, but that more timely updates of eligibles data are critical. Commenters consistently stated that the current data seriously under counts the number of WIC eligibles and they strongly encourage FNS to continue working on obtaining new and better estimates. However, two commenters stated that FNS should withdraw the current proposal until better data is obtained. One commenter maintained that Medicaid participants should be included in the estimates. One commenter proposed an alternative approach similar to fair share using a ``full funding'' concept. However, after much consideration of this particular alternative, the Department believes that it would impede under fair share State agencies progress in moving towards full funding. The Department will retain the fair share principle as proposed, using the best available indicators to determine each State agency's population of income eligibles. At the same time, the Department continues its commitment to develop more timely and accurate estimates of eligibles to be used in the WIC food funding formula. Health Indicators. In the current formula, the calculation of each State's eligible WIC population, used to compute its fair share allocation, includes an adjustment for certain health indicators (infant mortality and low birth weight rates) in the food funding formula. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the population targeted by the health indicators is now largely served. Moreover, as service to the highest risk participants has increased, the overall impact of the health indicators on the amount of food funds received by States has become negligible. Furthermore, the inclusion of the health indicators unduly complicates and reduces understanding of the food funding formula. Therefore, the Department proposed to eliminate the use of the health indicator adjustments. All commenters who commented on this provision were supportive of removing the health indicators from the formula. Therefore, this final rule retains the provision as proposed. Adjustments for Higher Cost Areas. The current growth component also makes an adjustment for the higher food costs of four specific State agencies located outside of the continental United States (or Indian State agencies located within their borders). These State agencies currently are Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The Department proposed to retain this adjustment, but to allow more flexibility than the current regulation. The majority of commenters supported the proposed provision. However, some commenters misinterpreted this provision to mean that State agencies or portions of State agencies (urban areas, rural areas, Indian Tribal organizations) within the continental United States (i.e., within the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia) that can document higher food costs should receive an adjustment. Other commenters specifically stated that Puerto Rico should be considered as an outlying State agency. This rule retains the provision as proposed. However, the Department would like to clarify that the proposed provision was not intended to expand the adjustment for higher cost in areas to those State agencies located within the continental United States. At this time, there is no data to support adjustments for areas within the continental United States. With regard to Puerto Rico, although it is potentially eligible for this adjustment under the new provision, it must still demonstrate that it meets the requisite requirements set forth in Section 246.16(c)(3)(i)(B). In particular, it must document that economic conditions result in higher food costs, and that it has successfully implemented voluntary cost containment measures. Adjustments for Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) The growth allocation for the Indian Tribal Organizations has traditionally presented problems due to inadequate data regarding eligibles. The Department knows of no data source to resolve this problem. Therefore, it proposed to give FNS the authority to oversee negotiations between one or more ITOs and the geographic State agency or agencies in which the ITO is located. FNS could, acting independently or at the request of a State agency, involve affected State agencies in an agreement on the temporary or permanent transfer of funds. Negotiations could be conducted to shift funds among these State agencies to better reflect the actual service being provided by each of the State agencies. Only a few commenters addressed this provision. The commenters were generally in favor of the provision but stressed that caution must be used in shifting funds from one State agency to another, particularly based on eligibles data that is questionable. In addition, there may be a misunderstanding that such grant adjustments will occur without input from all affected State agencies. The Department would like to clarify that any grant adjustments must be agreed upon by all State agencies involved, and by FNS. At no time would any affected State agency be left out of the negotiation process. Additionally, since the proposed rule was published, it has been brought to our attention that negotiations may need to also take place between two or more ITOs not just between ITOs and geographic State agencies. The final rule has been modified to reflect this. In all other respects, it remains as proposed. Commodity Supplemental Food Program The Commodity Supplemental Food Program's (CSFP) service to low- income women, infants and children contributes to the Administration's goal of fully funding the WIC Program by the end of fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 1995 budget request and out year budget targets assume CSFP women, infants and children participation will equal the authorized caseload level. In those States where both CSFP and WIC operate, the current rule requires the subtraction from the WIC income eligible database of those participants (based on actual, average CSFP participation in the prior fiscal year) who are estimated as eligible for the WIC Program, but elect to receive benefits under CSFP. As CSFP is currently authorized to serve, in addition to WIC eligibles, 5 year old children and postpartum women from 6 months to 1 year postpartum, not all CSFP participants are categorically eligible for the WIC Program. Therefore, FNS assumes that one-fourth of the children and one-half of the postpartum women participating in CSFP are not eligible for the WIC Program. The balance of CSFP participants are subtracted from the WIC eligibles estimate. The Department proposed to make three changes to this deduction from the WIC eligibles database. First, it proposed to modify the method for determining the number of CSFP women, infants and children to subtract from the WIC eligibles database. It proposed to base the deduction upon the authorized caseload for CSFP women, infants and children, rather than actual participation. Second, it proposed to base the deduction on the CSFP caseload authorized at the beginning of the caseload cycle of the prior fiscal year (generally announced on December 1). Finally, it proposed that the adjustment described above for those CSFP participants who are not also categorically eligible for WIC (postpartum women from 6 months to 1 year postpartum and 5 year old children) would no longer be made. The Department believed that utilizing the total CSFP caseload level for women, infants and children, rather than actual participation, more equitably accounts for the resources provided to a State agency to serve the WIC target population under CSFP. These changes were intended to ensure that States that do not have access to CSFP were not disadvantaged in their access to WIC funds when compared with States that operate both programs. Uniformly, commenters were strongly opposed to reducing the WIC eligibles data by the CSFP caseload, particularly with no reduction for non-WIC eligibles participating in CSFP. Commenters felt that deducting CSFP caseload from the WIC eligibles would improperly reduce estimates of income eligibles. They also stated that it was inequitable to no longer adjust the deduction to account for non-WIC eligible CSFP recipients. Most commenters suggested retaining the method used in the current formula. However, several commenters suggested perhaps there are States that could report WIC eligibles actually served by CSFP and then that data could be used to determine income eligibles. In view of the concerns raised by commenters, the Department has decided not to adopt the proposed rule. Instead, the method used in the current regulations for deducting the CSFP participants eligible for WIC from the WIC income eligible data base will be retained. Performance Standard The Department also proposed to revise the 95 percent performance standard which reduces the current year grant for any State agency that does not spend at least 95 percent of its food grant. The Department is concerned that expenditure of only 95 percent of the grant is too generous in the context of a fully funded program. While the Department is sympathetic to the difficulties of rapidly growing States in meeting the 95 percent expenditure level, State agencies with relatively stable funding and participation do not face the same difficulties. For State agencies at or exceeding their fair share level, expending less than the 95 percent of allocated food funds is likely to indicate they have funds they cannot use. The Department proposed to retain the 95 percent standard for State agencies receiving less than their fair share allocation, and to increase the performance standard to 98 percent for those at or over their fair share level. The majority of commenters were adamantly opposed to two different performance standards for over and under fair share State agencies. Additionally, most commenters felt the 98 percent performance standard was much too stringent and unrealistic due to food cost fluctuations, infant formula rebates, variations in participation and other factors not directly controlled by the WIC State agency. In view of these comments, the final rule deletes the proposed two-tier performance standard for over and under fair share State agencies. However, the Department continues to be concerned that unspent funds be directed to States with documented need, especially as State demographic and socioeconomic situations fluctuate from year to year. This is particularly critical in a full funding environment. Therefore, the Department has decided to retain a uniform performance standard, and to gradually increase it over time. Accordingly, paragraph 246.16 (e)(2)(i) in the final rule establishes a 96 percent performance spending standard in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and a 97 percent standard for fiscal year 1997 and beyond for all WIC State agencies. Additionally, prior to applying the performance standard, the current regulations in section 246.16(e)(3)(i) allow for exclusion from the grant of food funds that are spent forward into a succeeding fiscal year as authorized by section 246.16(b)(3)(ii), and (iv) and (v). Since spentforward funds are merely unspent funds that the State agency can retain, the Department proposed that they should no longer be excluded when assessing spending performance. A few commenters opposed this provision, but the Department continues to believe that spendforward funds should not be deducted when calculating the performance standard. This deduction has led to the current situation in which there are significant amounts of unspent money moving from one fiscal year to another. If not rectified, this will compound the extreme pressure that will be placed on all Departmental discretionary spending in order to meet the commitment to WIC full funding. Therefore, the final rule retains this provision as proposed. Any food funds backspent under section 246.16(b)(3)(i) or converted to nutritional services and administration (NSA) funds under section 246.16(g) will continue to be excluded from the food grant for purposes of applying the performance standard. These two reductions are appropriate in that they reflect food funds actually expended in the current year, and not merely reserved for future use. Summary of the Final Food Funding Formula The foregoing has described the decisions reached on the proposed provisions. To ensure that the new formula in this final rule is fully understood, the following describes the allocation process and provides simplified examples of the funding process. Fair Share Allocation Objective The funding objective is to give each State agency its fair share allocation of funds to the extent funds are available. Funds available include funds appropriated for the fiscal year as well as unspent funds carried over from the prior fiscal year that State agencies have not retained under spendforward authority as provided in section 246.16 (b)(3)(ii). An example of a simplified fair share allocation is shown below. This example assumes that available funds total $5000, and the total number of income eligibles is 1000 persons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fair share State agency Eligibles percentage Fair share No. allocation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.................................... 200 20 $1,000 B.................................... 500 50 2,500 C.................................... 300 30 1,500 ---------------------------------- Total.......................... 1,000 100 5,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stability Allocation Recognizing that State agencies may already have participants on the program supported with the grant funds each State agency received in the prior year, the formula strives to protect this service depending on total funds available. A stability allocation is provided to protect prior year grant levels contingent on availability of funds. If funds are not adequate to fully fund prior year grants, all State agencies will receive a prorata reduction from their prior year grant level commensurate with the shortfall of available funds. If funds are available, each State agency would receive a stability allocation equal to its final authorized grant level as of September 30 of the prior fiscal year. If funds are still available, all State agencies will receive an inflation adjustment. This inflation adjustment will reflect the anticipated rate of food cost increases as determined by the Department. Should funds be inadequate to fully meet this adjustment, each State agency will receive an equal percent inflation increase as permitted by the amount of funds available. Growth Allocation If funds remain after the stability allocation, then these funds are provided for a ``growth allocation''. The growth allocation gives additional funds to each State agency which has an inflation-adjusted stability allocation which is less than its fair share allocation. The formula subtracts each State agency's current year stability allocation from its fair share allocation to determine the dollar shortfall. Each State agency's shortfall, as a percent of all State agency's shortfalls, yields its percent share of the funds available for the growth allocation. Example of Formula Allocation Process The example below describes allocation steps for stability and growth. First, all State agencies have received at least their prior year final grant, which totaled $4,500. As $5,000 is available to allocate in this case, funds are sufficient to do both stability and growth allocations. 1. Stability Allocation. All State agencies receive an inflationary increase, based on full inflation, to the extent permitted by available funding. In this example, available funding permits the entire inflationary increase: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prior year Inflation Stability State agency Fair share final grant 3% grant ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A................... $1,000 $1,100 33 $1,133 B................... 2,500 2,000 60 2,060 C................... 1,500 1,400 42 1,442 --------------------------------------------------- Total......... 5,000 4,500 135 4,635 Funds remaining=$365 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Growth Allocation. Under fair share State agencies get a proportion of remaining funds based on the shortfall between their fair share allocation and stability grant. In the example below, the $365 available for growth funding is shared by States B and C according to their respective shortfalls from their fair share allocations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $$ State agency Fair share Stability Shortfall ------------- Funds rec'd Final grant grant Pct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A................................. $1,000 $1,133 NA NA NA $1,133 B................................. 2,500 2,060 $440 88 $322 2,382 C................................. 1,500 1,442 58 12 43 1,485 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total....................... 5,000 4,635 498 100 365 5,000 Funds remaining=$0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If any funds allocated in the two steps above cannot be used and are declined by one or more State agencies, then these funds are allocated, using the method in Step 2, to the under fair share State agencies which have the ability to use more funds. If all funds are still not distributed, then these remaining funds would be allocated to State agencies which have a stability allocation which is at or greater than its fair share allocation. Each of these State agencies which can document the need for additional funds will be eligible to receive additional funds based on the difference between its stability allocation level and fair share allocation. State agencies closest to their fair share allocation shall receive first consideration. The Department recognizes that being at or over fair share is a statistical definition that may or may not accurately indicate the actual need for funding to serve all eligibles within that State. Therefore, over fair share States must have the opportunity to receive additional funds, should the funding be available. For instance, in the example above, State A would be able to receive funds declined by State B or C. In this way, the precedence for funding will be to increase funding to under fair share State agencies to the extent possible, while still allowing State agencies that are over their fair share level to receive additional funds when a documented need for additional funds exists. Additionally, over fair share States must demonstrate effective efforts to control food package costs. All grants awarded through this process would become the basis of the following year's stability allocation. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 246 Food assistance programs, Food donations, Grant programs--Social programs, Infants and children, Maternal and child health, Nutrition education, Public assistance programs, WIC, Women. Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 246 is amended as follows: PART 246--SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN 1. The authority citation for part 246 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1786. 2. In Sec. 246.16: a. Paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3) and (e)(2)(i) are revised; and b. Paragraph (r) is redesignated as paragraph (p) and all internal references to the redesignated paragraph are revised. The revisions read as follows: Sec. 246.16 Distribution of funds. * * * * * (c) Allocation formula. * * * (1) Use of participation data in the formula. Wherever the formula set forth in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section require the use of participation data, the Department shall use participation data reported by State agencies according to Sec. 246.25(b). * * * * * (3) Allocation of food benefit funds. In any fiscal year, any amounts remaining from amounts appropriated for such fiscal year and amounts appropriated from the preceding fiscal year after making allocations under paragraph (a)(6) of this section and allocations for nutrition services and administration (NSA) as required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall be made available for food costs. Allocations to State agencies for food costs will be determined according to the following procedure: (i) Fair share allocation. (A) For each State agency, establish a fair share allocation which shall be an amount of funds proportionate to the State agency's share of the national aggregate population of persons who are income eligible to participate in the Program based on the 185 percent of poverty criterion. The Department will determine each State agency's population of persons categorically eligible for WIC which are at or below 185% of poverty, through the best available, nationally uniform, indicators as determined by the Department. If the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) also operates in the area served by the WIC State agency, the number of participants in such area participating in the CSFP but otherwise eligible to participate in the WIC Program, as determined by FNS, shall be deducted from the WIC State agency's population of income eligible persons. (B) The Department may adjust the respective amounts of food funds that would be allocated to a State agency which is outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia when the State agency can document that economic conditions result in higher food costs for the State agency. Prior to any such adjustment, the State agency must demonstrate that it has successfully implemented voluntary cost containment measures, such as improved vendor management practices, participation in multi-state agency infant formula rebate contracts or other cost containment efforts. The Department may use the Thrifty Food Plan amounts used in the Food Stamp Program, or other available data, to formulate adjustment factors for such State agencies. (ii) Stability allocation. If funds are available, each State agency shall receive a stability allocation equal to its final authorized grant level as of September 30 of the prior fiscal year plus a full inflation increase. The inflation factor shall reflect the anticipated rate of food cost increases as determined by the Department. If funds are not available to provide all State agencies with their full stability allocation, all State agencies shall receive a prorata reduction from their full stability allocation as required by the short fall of available funds. (iii) Growth allocation. (A) If additional funds remain available after the allocation of funds under (c)(3)(ii) of this section, each State agency which has a stability allocation, as calculated in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, which is less than its fair share allocation shall receive additional funds based on the difference between its stability allocation and fair share allocation. Each State agency's difference shall be divided by the total of the differences for all such State agencies, to determine the percent share of the available growth funds each State agency shall receive. In the event a State agency declines any of its allocation in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section or this paragraph, the funds declined shall be allocated to the remaining State agencies which are still under their fair share. (B) In the event funds still remain after completing the distribution in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) of this section, these funds shall be allocated to all State agencies including those with a stability allocation at, or greater than, their fair share allocation. Each State agency which can document the need for additional funds shall receive additional funds based on the difference between its prior year grant level and its fair share allocation. State agencies closest to their fair share allocation shall receive first consideration. (iv) Migrant services. At least \9/10\ of one percent of appropriated funds for each fiscal year shall be available first to assure service to eligible members of migrant populations. For those State agencies serving migrants, a portion of the grant shall be designated to each State agency for service to members of migrant populations based on that State agency's prior year reported migrant participation. The national aggregate amount made available first for this purpose shall equal \9/10\ of one percent of all funds appropriated each year for the Program. (v) Special provisions for Indian State agencies. The Department may choose to adjust the allocations and/or eligibles data among Indian State agencies, or among Indian State agencies and the geographic State agencies in which they are located when eligibles data for the State agencies' population is determined to not fairly represent the population to be served. Such allocations may be redistributed from one State agency to another, based on negotiated agreements among the affected State agencies approved by FNS. * * * * * (e) Recovery and reallocation of funds. * * * * * (2) Performance standards. * * * (i) The amount allocated to any State agency for food benefits in the current fiscal year shall be reduced if such State agency's food expenditures for the preceding fiscal year do not equal or exceed 96 percent of the amount allocated to the State agency for such costs for fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 and 97 percent for fiscal year 1997 and beyond. Such reduction shall equal the difference between the State agency's preceding year food expenditures and the performance expenditure standard amount. For purposes of determining the amount of such reduction, the amount allocated to the State agency for food benefits for the preceding fiscal year shall not include food funds expended for food costs incurred under the spendback provision in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section or conversion authority in paragraph (g) of this section. Temporary waivers of the performance standard may be granted at the discretion of the Department. * * * * * Dated: September 30, 1994. Ellen Haas, Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services. [FR Doc. 94-24673 Filed 10-4-94; 11:08 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-U