# Presentation: 727009

## 2007 NAFDPIR20th Annual ConferenceSan Antonio, Texas

**USDA General Session**
**Monday, June 11, 2007**

## Overview

- Today
-  2007 Farm Bill
-  2007 FDPIR Administrative Funding
-  2008 President’s Budget
-  FDPIR Funding Methodology Work Group

## Overview

- Tomorrow
-  Under Secretary Nancy Montanez Johner
-  FDPIR Nutrition Talk Listserv
-  New Commodity Labeling
-  Commodity Updates
-  FDPIR’s Role in Disasters
-  DoD Fresh Produce Changes
-  ERS/Urban Institute Study
-  Multi-food Warehouse/Distribution Contracts
-  ECOS-Electronic Commodity Ordering   System
- Delivery Issues

## Overview

- Thursday
-  AIS Update
-  Food Package Review
-  Nutrition Education Listserv

## 2007 Farm Bill Proposals

## 2007 Farm Bill Proposals

**Three proposals that would impact FDPIR: **
- Ensure that those disqualified from FDPIR for an intentional program violation (IPV) will also be disqualified from Food Stamps;
- Increase administrative funding by $27      million over 10 years;
- Provide a structured and equitable method for allocating administrative funds.

**Notes:**
Farm Bill is shorthand term for the legislation that establishes the basic benefits and requirements for FDPIR and most of our other commodity distribution programs.  Also sets policy for farm payments, Food Stamps and a variety of other USDA programs.

Every 5 years or so Congress typically drafts a new Farm Bill and as part of that process, the Secretary of Agriculture may submit proposals to Congress for its consideration.
This winter, the Secretary sent Congress a number of Farm Bill proposals—including some related to FDPIR.  I’ll give you an overview of each of the FDPIR related proposals.

First is proposal to ensure that those disqualified from FDPIR for IPV are also disqualified from Food Stamps.

Next is a 2-part proposal to both increase administrative funding for FDPIR and provide a new means to allocate administrative funding.
Provide new funds every year over  the next 10 years and set in place a fair method of distributing those funds.

## Farm Bill Proposal on FDPIRIPV Disqualifications 

**Why is USDA making this proposal?**
- Would establish reciprocal policy between FDPIR and Food Stamps on IPV disqualifications.

**Notes:**
The Secretary has proposed expanding the list of Food Stamp program disqualifications to include persons disqualified from FDPIR for intentional program violations.  This simply aligns FDPIR policy with Food Stamp policy.

## Increasing and Restructuring FDPIR Administrative Funding

**Why is USDA making this proposal?**
- To ensure that administrative funds will be distributed fairly.
- To ensure that no ITO/State Agency faces a reduction in funding as the new funding methodology is implemented.

**Notes:**
What’s behind this proposal?

Very basic principle of ensuring that FDPIR participants across the country can count on a basic level of services—to do that we need to make sure the adminsitrative funds are targeted to meet program needs.

We recognize that there are a lot of opinions on what constitutes a fair method of allocating administrative funds and Nancy is going to talk about how we have made our best effort to conduct a process where we listen and respond to those opinions.

What I think most everyone can agree on is that it is not fair to implement a new methodology that causes any program to face a sudden and severe reduction in funding.  An integral piece of the proposal is to ensure that no FDPIR program will receive less funding when the methodology is put into place.

## What is the current process for distributing administrative funds?

- FNS Regional Offices receive funds based on historical percentages that haven’t changed in more than a decade and don’t tie to any measure of need.
- Each Regional Office has developed its own process for funds allocation to ITOs/State Agencies.

## Comparison of Funding and Share of Participation in FY 2006

|  | Funding Received | Share of Participation | Funding per Participant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NERO | 0.97% | 0.39% | $704 |
| SERO | 0.77% | 1.28% | $146 |
| MWRO | 10.96% | 8.83% | $344 |
| MPRO | 28.48% | 24.28% | $324 |
| SWRO | 27.03% | 34.76% | $215 |
| WRO | 31.79% | 30.46% | $289 |

**Notes:**
This chart shows the results of the current process.  [Explain each column]

Notice differences between funding received and share of participation

Notice wide variation in per participant funding levels per region; gets more pronounced at the program levels where it varies from about $130 to almost $2,000 per participant

We are not saying there shouldn’t be some variation, but we need to be sure that the variances are justified and that there is as consistent a level of service as possible across the country.

## Farm Bill Proposals on FDPIR Administrative Funding 

- Would protect all FDPIR programs from losing funds as methodology is implemented.
- Would increase the FDPIR administrative budget nationally by about 10% each year.
- Do not specify a funding methodology; FDPIR Funding Methodology Work Group will make its recommendation to the FNS Administrator.

**Notes:**
We also recognize that these variances have developed over time and that each of our FDPIR programs has built an infrastructure that we want to maintain.

So, our proposal would increase the FDPIR budget by almost 10% each year in order to at least keep everyone’s funding constant while we implement a new funding methodology.

The proposal DOES NOT identify a methodology and is not meant to override the FDPIR funding work group.  It assumes the work group will continue its work and that FNS will consider the recommendation.  As Nancy will discuss shortly, the work group has made a great deal of progress in working toward a recommendation for a new funding methodology.  

## FY 2007 FDPIRAdministrative Funding 

## NAFDPIR Resolution 2006-03

- “NAFDPIR does recommend that FNS direct any ***new*** national appropriations in FY’07, above that of FY’06, to the regions currently under-funded, that is funded at a lesser percentage than the participation they are serving warrants.  Decisions for further disbursement would be made at the regional level in negotiation with the Tribes in greatest need.  This action would not reduce funding to any other regions from the FY ’06 appropriation.”

**Notes:**
Farm Bill proposal is our long-term, structural solution to the FDPIR administrative funding issue.  But, last year at this conference, the NAFDPIR membership passed a resolution urging FNS to make a short-term fix to its funding allocation methodology.   The resolution recognized that the process for developing a new methodology for allocating FDPIR administrative funding must be a thoughtful one that involves input from tribal leaders.  Recognizing that this process would take time, the resolution suggested a way to provide immediate relief to some tribes that have been inadequately funded.

Text of the resolution appears on this slide.  

In February 2007, we received final appropriations for FY07.  Congress provided an increase of about $1 million in FDPIR administrative funding for currently participating tribes.  We appreciated that the NAFDPIR membership had come together to support this resolution and wanted to implement it.

After seeking some clarification from the NAFDPIR Board on a definition of underfunded, we identified which FDPIR programs had received less funds in FY06 than their share of participation would warrant.  The next slide shows you the results.

## Under Funded ITOs per NAFDPIR Resolution 2006-03

| Region | Number of Under Funded ITOs | Relative Degree of Under Funding  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Northeast | 0 | 0% |
| Southeast | 2 | 3.84% |
| Midwest | 4 | 3.25% |
| Southwest | 7 | 63.22% |
| Mountain Plains | 7 | 17.12% |
| Western | 8 | 12.57% |

**Notes:**
When applying the resolution’s definition of underfunded to each FDPIR program, all regions but the northeast had some underfunded programs.  We then sought to quantify how much each of these ITOs was underfunded relative to each other and that’s how we got the percentages in the far right column.  For example, both SW and MP had 7 ITOs that were underfunded but the difference between share of participation and share of funding was much greater for the SW tribes.

We applied the percentages you see in the far right column to the $1 million increase we received and the next slide shows how the resolution’s implementation affected FY07 funding levels.

## Comparison of FY 2006 and 2007 Regional Allocations

| Region | FY 2006
Based on Historical Percentages | FY 2007
Based on NAFDPIR Resolution 2006-03 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Northeast | $244,452 | $244,452 |
| Southeast | $168,272 | $226,103 |
| Midwest | $2,727,136 | $2,776,151 |
| Southwest | $6,720,367 | $7,672,803 |
| Mountain Plains | $7,078,569 | $7,336,470 |
| Western | $7,902,729 | $8,092,021* |
| Total | $24,841,525 | $26,348,000 |
|  |  | *+ $451,000 for Alaska |

**Notes:**
To determine this year’s total funding levels, we took last year’s allocations and simply added each region’s share of the $1 million in additional funding per the resolution.  As a result, all regions except the NE saw increases with the bulk of the increase going to the SW region.  

So,  the resolution has provided some immediate relief for some regions by redistributing $1 million of the over $25 million we have for FDPIR administrative funding.  But, we still believe there’s a need for a long-term solution that provides a fair, objective and easy to understand means of allocating the total pot of FDPIR funding.

## FY 2008 President’s Budget

## FY 2008 President’s Budget

**Proposed FDPIR budget = $79.7 million**
- $50.4 million for food and $29.2 million for administrative funding
- Includes an additional $1 million for a new FDPIR nutrition education grant program
- Includes an additional $1.2 million for Alaska

**Notes:**
I’d like to outline the President’s FY2008 Budget request.  This request was sent to Congress in February of this year, and neither the House nor Senate have drafted an appropriations bill so we do not have any indication of how these proposals will fare.

Overall budget for FDPIR is nearly $80 million.  Significant increase from FY07 due primarily to inclusion of funding for 2 new initiatives.

First is a new FDPIR nutrition education grant program.  Under this proposal, ITOs/States would submit proposals to provide nut ed to individuals not currently served by Food Stamp Nutrition Education.  We will encourage collaboration with the Extension Service, State agencies or other nut ed providers.  Proposals should be targeted toward the use of interventions that have proven effective with Native Americans and target women and children, who play key roles in family meal decisions.  Budget requests $1 million which would then be awarded to one or more of the most promising proposals.  This request repeats a proposal that Congress rejected last year, but we feel it is important and are continuing to support it.
The other initiative is the addition of AK.  The ANTHC submitted an application to operate FDPIR in 13 rural villages.  FNS approved proposal on May 7.  Will likely have some certifications beginning this year but next year will be first full year of operation.  This program has some unique expenses due to the fact that there is only one way to get food to these villages (by plane).  So, we have asked for additional funding for AK so as not to cut into the administrative funding for any other FDPIR program.  

## FDPIR Funding Methodology Work Group

**Notes:**
Good afternoon.  I’m Nancy Theodore and I work for the Food and Nutrition Service in the Policy Branch that handles FDPIR and other commodity programs.

For the past 2 years I have been providing staff support to the FDPIR Funding Methodology Work Group.

## Funding Methodology Work Group

- Began meeting in May 2005 to develop a proposal for a new methodology for allocating federal FDPIR administrative funding

**Notes:**
The work group began meeting in May 2005.  

The group was brought together to develop a proposal for a new way to allocate federal FDPIR administrative funds.

## Why was the work group convened?

-  Long-standing concerns that the current administrative funds allocation process creates inequities among Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) and State Agencies

**Notes:**
The reason the work group was convened was because of long-standing concerns by FNS and some Tribal officials that the current process for allocating FDPIR administrative funds was creating funding inequities among the ITOs and State agencies.

## Why are there inequities?

- FNS-HQ allocates appropriated funds to its Regional Offices; the Regional Offices work individually with ITOs and State agencies to approve annual budget submissions and allocate   the funds accordingly
- The funds allocated to the Regional Offices are based on historical percentages that have not changed in more than a decade, and each Regional Office has developed its own process for funds allocation
- FY 2006 FDPIR administrative funding ranged from $129 to $1,859 per participant

**Notes:**
What are there inequities?

There are probably several contributing factors, but we believe the primary reason is the way funds are allocated to the FNS Regional Offices.

FNS-Headquarters receives appropriated funds each year for the local administration of FDPIR.  These funds are divided among the Regional Offices based on historical percentages that have not changed in many years and do not seem to be based on any objective measures. 

The Regional Offices work individually with the ITOs and the State agencies to approve annual budget submissions and then allocate the funds accordingly.

In FY 2006, allocations to the ITOs and State agencies ranged from $129 per participant to $1,859 per participant.  

While operational differences and varying matching rates will account for some variation in federal per participant amounts, we do not believe that these factors can totally explain such a wide distribution.

We want ensure that all ITOs and State agencies are treated fairly, so we asked the work group to explore other funding methodology options.

## What is the goal of thework group?

- To develop one or more proposals for a funding methodology that is fair, objective, and easy to understand
- The proposal(s) will be forwarded to Roberto Salazar, FNS’
- 	Administrator, for his
- 	consideration

**Notes:**
So what exactly is the work group supposed to do?

It’s goal is to develop one or more proposals for a funding methodology that is fair, objective, and easy to understand.

When completed, the work group’s recommendation will be forwarded to Roberto Salazar, FNS’ Administrator, for his consideration.  

## Work Group Members

- 16 members:
-  5 from NAFDPIR Board
-  4 from ITOs/Regional Associations
-  1 from a State Agency
-  6 from FNS
- ITO/State Agency members represent:
-  3 small programs (under 400 participants)
-  4 medium programs (400-1500 participants)
-  3 large programs (over 1500 participants)

**Notes:**
The work group consists of 16 members.

Ten members are representatives from your NAFDPIR Board, Regional Associations, and neighboring ITOs and State agencies that administer FDPIR.

Six members are representatives from FNS headquarters and Regional Offices.

The ITO/State agency members represent the interests of small, medium and large programs.  We have 3 members from small programs, 4 members from medium-sized programs, and 3 members from large programs.  

## Tribal/State Work Group Members

| All Programs | NAFDPIR President | Tony Nertoli | Sault Ste. Marie
 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Southeast | Southeast ITOs and State Agencies | Gale Dills | NC Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services &
Cherokee Tribe of NC |
| Midwest | NAFDPIR Vice-Pres

Midwest ITOs and State Agencies | Susie Roy

Betty Jo Graveen | Leech Lake

Lac du Flambeau |

## Tribal/State Work Group Members

| Southwest | NAFDPIR Vice-Pres

ONFACT | Linday Rayon

Melinda Newport | Muscogee (Creek)

Chickasaw |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mountain Plains | NAFDPIR Vice-Pres

Mountain Plains Region Executive Board | Charles Gates

Mary Trottier | Standing Rock

Spirit Lake |

## Tribal/State Work Group Members

| Western | NAFDPIR Vice-Pres

WAFDPIR | Nancy Egan

Thomas Yellowhair | Shoshone Paiute

Navajo Nation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

## FNS Work Group Members

| Southeast | Cindy Wheeler, Program Specialist |
| --- | --- |
| Midwest | Elvira Jarka, Director, Special Nutrition Programs  |
| Southwest | Chris Hennelly, Program Specialist |
| Mountain Plains | Don DeBoer, Senior Program Specialist |
| Western | Madeline Viens, Assistant Director, Field Operations |
| Headquarters | Laura Castro, Chief, Policy Branch |
| Facilitator | Melanie Casey |
| Staff Support | Nancy Theodore |

## What is the status of the work group’s recommendation?

- The work group developed a preliminary proposal, which was mailed to Tribal and State officials on November 28, 2006 for comment
- In January 2007, FNS held meetings across the country with Tribal and State officials; over 100 Tribal and State officials participated
- The due date for written comments on the preliminary proposal was March 16, 2007; FNS received 39 written comments

**Notes:**
As most of you know, the work group develop a preliminary proposal that was mailed to Tribal and State officials in November 2006.

Those same Tribal and State officials were invited to participate in public meetings held in January 2007 across the country.  

The meetings were arranged so that the Tribal and State officials could learn more about the preliminary proposal, ask questions, and offer comments.  Over 100 Tribal and State officials participated in the four meetings.

Written comments on the preliminary proposal were also solicited, and we received 39 comment letters.

- On April 4, 2007, FNS Administrator Roberto Salazar wrote to the Tribal and State officials and the work group stating that he would consider other proposals; he asked the work group to consider the comments offered and develop one  or more proposals for his review
- On April 17-19, 2007, the work group met and  reviewed all the comments submitted and the transcripts of the four public meetings
- Copies of the comment letters and the meeting transcripts can be found at: _[www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/fdpir/default.htm](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/programs/fdpir/default.htm)_
**	**Click on “FDPIR Funding Work Group”

**Notes:**
On April 4, 2007, FNS Administrator Roberto Salazar wrote to the Tribal and State officials and the work group as a follow-up to the January meetings.

He acknowledge the comments, both for and against the preliminary proposal, that were offered at the January meetings.  He reaffirmed the goal of the work group to develop a recommendation for an objective, fair, and easy to understand funding allocation process, and stated that he would consider other proposals from the work group.

He asked the work group to consider all the comments offered by the Tribal and State officials and develop one or more proposals for his review.

On April 17-19, the work group met in Alexandria, Virginia to review the written comments and transcripts of the four public meetings.

If you would like to see the comment letters and the meeting transcripts, please go to the work group’s webpage on the FNS website.

www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/progams/fdpir/default.htm

Then click on “FDPIR Funding Work Group.

- The work group began developing alternative proposals designed to address the issues raised by those who commented
- The work group is still exploring and developing those alternative proposals
- The work group will be meeting this week and holding conference calls in the coming weeks
- The work group plans to complete its recommendation and forward it to
- 	FNS Administrator Roberto Salazar
- 	by **August 6, 2007**

**Notes:**
The work group discussed the comments and the issues raised by those who commented, and then began developing alternative proposals designed to address those issues.

The work group is still exploring and developing those alternative proposals.

The work group will be meeting tomorrow and will continue to work via conference calls in the next few weeks.

The work group plans to complete its recommendation and forward it to Mr. Salazar by August 6, 2007. 

* Mr. Salazar met with the work group during its meeting in Alexandria and also asked the work group to provide him with a recommendation on consultation with the Tribes and States.

## For More Information 

- FNS website:
- _[www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/fdpir/default.htm](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/programs/fdpir/default.htm)_
- Click on: FDPIR Funding
- Work Group

**Notes:**
If you would like more information about the work group and the development of the final recommendation, please go to the work group’s webpage on the FNS website.

You can find this information at www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/fdpir/default.htm.

Click on “FDPIR Funding Work Group.”

Thank you.  We’ll open it up to questions and comments now.

## 	Comments?

- 			**Questions?**