# Presentation: 061187

## 2006 NAFDPIR Conference

- USDA General Session

- Monday’s Agenda
- Expansion of the Southwest Multi-Food  Warehouse Pilot Project & ECOS
- Commodity Availability & Delivery Problems
- Commercial Labeling
- Food Product Dating, Shelf Life & Expiration Dates
- FDPIR Funding Methodology

## Wednesday’s Agenda

- Farm Bill Reauthorization
- FY 2007 President's Budget
- FY 2006 Bison Purchase
- FDPIR Food Package Review
- Commodity Acceptability Progress Reports

## Wednesday’s Agenda

- FNS Handbook 501 Changes
- New FDPIR Management Evaluation Module
- Nutrition Education
- FNS Response to 2005 NAFDPIR Resolution

## Expansion of the Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot

## Southwest Multi-FoodWarehouse Pilot 

- The Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and FDPIR was implemented by FNS to pilot test a commercial food ordering and delivery system

## Objectives

- The two major objectives were:
- To significantly improve multi-food ordering and delivery service to FDPIR and CSFP recipient agencies; and
- To reduce the level of Federal staff resources necessary to administer these labor-intensive programs without appreciably increasing costs

## Background

- The pilot began operations in May 2004 and has been extended to March 2007
- Under the pilot, USDA’s Farm Service Agency contracts with a commercial food distributor to operate the multi-food ordering and delivery system for CSFP and FDPIR agencies in the Southwest region
- USDA continues to purchase the food and delivers it to the multi-food contractor’s warehouse

## Standard System vs. Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot 

| Standard System | Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot |
| --- | --- |
| Recipient agencies order 6-8 weeks in advance of delivery | Recipient agencies can order as late as 3 days in advance of delivery |
| Delivery window is a 
2-week period | Agencies can negotiate set delivery dates and times |
| Delivery date is not known until as late as 
24 hours before delivery | Negotiated delivery dates are set. Agencies can know months in advance |

## Standard System vs. Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot 

| Standard System | Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot |
| --- | --- |
| Order goes from State:
→ FNS Regional Office
→ FNS Headquarters 
→ Farm Service Agency    in Kansas City 
→ Federal warehouse | Orders go directly from recipient agency to warehouse through a Internet-based ordering system
 |

## Standard System vs. Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot

| Standard System | Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot |
| --- | --- |
| Some ordered items may not be available by the delivery date and another product selection may be required.  This can involve communication between 
5 entities. | Order is placed by the recipient agency against real-time inventory.  Recipients can see what 
is available as orders are placed. |

## Customer Service Benefits 

- In June 2005, we administered a customer service survey.  Both FDPIR and CSFP respondents liked:
- ordering on-line because they see foods and quantities available.  They also receive an order confirmation as soon as thy place their order.
- the option of ordering up to 3 days in advance of receiving their shipment.  Ordering more frequently implies receiving fresher product and maintaining less storage.
- pre-set delivery schedules.  They know they can count on their delivery when they see it.
- working with fewer agencies, less paperwork, and a simplified process

## Next Steps

- April 2006 – Sources Sought Notice (Complete)
- June 2006 – Request for Proposals
- June 2006 – Pre-Proposal Conference
- August 2006 – Proposals Due
- Fall 2006 – Contract(s) Award
- Winter 2006-2007
- ITO Training
- Stocking Warehouse
- Roll-out Begins!

## Expansion of the Southwest Multi-Food Warehouse Pilot

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## Commodity Availability and Delivery Problems

## Areas of Opportunity

- Communication
- Condition of Product
- Ordering Issues

## Communication

## Condition of Product

## Order Changes & Product Availability

## Problems, ????’s, ConcernsContact

- Janice Fitzgerald
- 703-305-7537
- janice.fitzgerald@fns.usda.gov

## Commodity Availability

- Here’s what’s happening:
- Out-dated product shipped
- Fair shares or unavailability of product
- Problem with cheese
- Late deliveries

## Commodity Availability

- Here’s what we’re doing:
- Monitoring product in inventory more closely
- _Lessen_ instances of unavailability or fair sharing
- Working with vendor(s) to correct problems
- Offer only what is available in inventory
- Submit orders for processing on schedule

## Commodity Availability

- Here’s what you can do to help:
- Order direct shipments when and where you can
- Work with each other to split direct shipments
- Notify regional office on changes in participation

## Commodity Availability and Delivery Problems 

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## Commercial Labeling

## Commercial Labels

**Commercial Labels in FDPIR**
- Piloted in late 1990’s
- An option for all products since FY 2000
**Benefits**
- Reduced delivery delays
- Increased competition
- Lower program costs
- Elimination of the “generic” stigma

## Commercial Labels

**Reasons some manufacturers still **
**use USDA labels:**
- Small companies don’t have their own label
- Some of our products are not commercial
- We have a different specification than the commercial
- The USDA label can be cheaper

## Commercial Labels for FDPIR

**Group B:**
- 	FSA plans to require commercial label for all products (most are already commercial)

## Commercial Labels for FDPIR

**Group A:**
- Frozen poultry and meat (including frozen chicken, ground beef, and ground bison)
- Canned beef stew and bison stew

## USDA Labels for FDPIR

- Canned tuna, beef, turkey, luncheon meat and dried egg mix
- 90% of juices
- 70% of canned fruits and vegetables (small vendors without a brand name label)
- AMS/Industry conference this week - will discuss best way to go commercial labels for fruits and vegetables

## Commercial Labels

- We will continue our efforts to move
- as many products as possible
- to commercial labels!

## Commercial Labeling

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## Food Product Dating, Shelf Life, Expiration Dates:Can We Date?

- Sheldon E. Gordon, MS, RD, LD  Nutritionist
- USDA/FNS

## Food Product Dating

- Product dating is not required by Federal regulations, but many stores and processors voluntarily date packages on food products
- There is no uniform or universally accepted system used for food dating in the United States

## Best If Used By (BIUB)

- The "Best If Used By" date is intended to tell you how long the product will retain best flavor or quality
_**This term is not a safety date**__ _
- Some foods may deteriorate more quickly and other foods may last longer than times suggested
- Products kept past the "Best If Used By" date are not necessarily out of condition

## What is Food Dating?

**Open dating:**
- 	Primarily on perishable foods
- 	(meat, poultry, eggs, dairy)
**Closed or coded dating:**
- 	Shelf-stable products such as cans and boxes of food

## Food Product Dating

**Open Dating: **
- Use of a calendar date
- Must include:
- month, day (and year if shelf-stable or frozen)
- a phrase explaining the meaning:
-  EXP
-  Sell by
-  Best if used before

## Closed or Coded Dating

- DEL MONTE FOOD:
- Example: 9045 (February 14, 1999)
- First line, four digits_Position 1:_ Year_Position 2, 3 and 4:_ Julian Date

- LAKESIDE FOODS:
- Example: 4A198 (October 19, 1998)
- Second line, second through fifth digits_Position 2:_ Month (January=1, September=9, October=A, November=B, December=C)_Position 3 and 4_: Date_Position 5_: Year

## Types of Food Dates

- “Pack” Date – Date of pack
- “Sell by” Date – Indicates how long a retailer should display and sell the product
- “Use by” Date – Date recommended for peak quality (determined by manufacturer)

## Factors Affecting Shelf Life

- Improper handling/sanitation
- Inadequate storage temperatures
- Container/packaging condition
- Storage time
- Humidity

## Ground Beef & Bison

-  Delivery Lag Time
-  Over Ordering/ High Inventory Maintenance
- Fluctuation in participation and distribution amounts at the sites
- Monthly Food Package Guide Rates

## General Guidelines

- High acid foods, such as canned tomatoes and pineapple, have a relatively shorter usage time
- Low acid foods, such as canned vegetables, meat, and poultry, have a longer usage time if stored in cool, clean, dry conditions
- Frozen foods must be maintained at 0 ̊F or below and have a relatively shorter usage time

## Can We Date?

- We are no longer sending out or endorsing  “Best If Used By” dates for our products
- We just provide guidance!
- USDA’s “Best If Used By” Guidance Websites:
-  Food Management in Households  _[http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/facts/biub/hhp-biubguide.pdf](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/facts/biub/hhp-biubguide.pdf)_
-  Warehouse Inventory Control
- _[http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/facts/biub/warehouse-biubguide.pdf](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/facts/biub/warehouse-biubguide.pdf)_

## Food Product Dating, Shelf Life,& Expiration Dates

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FDPIR Funding Methodology  

## Briefing Package

- List of work group members with contact information
- Background information
- Description of components under consideration

## Past Efforts to Change the Funding Methodology

**1994 and 1998**: NAFDPIR passed Resolutions that supported an equitable funding formula
**1998**: ITO/FNS work group was convened as part of an overall FNS Business Process Reengineering effort

## Trailblazers for New-Trition Team

- The Trailblazers for New-Trition Team (TNT) developed 3 models
- The models were presented to all Tribal and State governments with a request for comments:
- 	60% response rate
- 		49% favored a funding formula
-  45% were opposed

## TNT Recommendation

- In October 1999, the TNT issued a final report recommending one of the models
- Question:
- So, why wasn’t the TNT’s recommendation implemented?
- Answer:
- In 2000, the NAFDPIR membership passed a resolution asking FNS to withdraw the TNT proposal for a funding formula

## So, Why Are We Doing This Now?

- Following a meeting with Tribal leaders in 2005, Under Secretary Bost agreed to take another look at this issue
- Two primary concerns:
-  Inequities in funding allocation
-  FNS staff resources

## Inequities in Funding Allocation

- Longstanding concern that the current funding methodology does not provide an equitable basis for allocations
- FDPIR administrative funds are allocated to FNS Regional offices based on historical percentages for which there is no known basis
- Each FNS Regional Office negotiates budgets in a different way which has resulted in inconsistencies within and across regions

|  | Share of Funding | Share of Participation
(FY 2005) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| NERO | 0.97% | 0.38% |
| SERO | 0.77% | 1.35% |
| MWRO | 10.96% | 8.85% |
| MPRO | 28.48% | 23.80% |
| SWRO | 27.03% | 35.83% |
| WRO | 31.79% | 29.79% |

## Inequities in Funding Allocation

- Range of FY 2005 administrative funding per participant amounts _**among ITOs**_:
- 				$112 to $1375
- Range of FY 2005 administrative funding per participant amounts _**among Regions**_:
- 				$138 to $619

## FNS Staff Resources

- The budget negotiation process
- 	is time consuming for both
- 	FNS Regional Offices and the ITOs
- FNS Regional Offices negotiate budgets with 102 ITOs/State agencies each year

## Where Are We Now?

- FNS convened a work group that includes:
- 	- Representatives from ITOs
- 	- Representatives from FNS Regional 	Offices
- 	- FNS Headquarters staff

## NAFDPIR Board Members

- Tony Nertoli, President (Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians)
- Ray Capoeman, First Vice-President and
- 	W Region Vice-President (Quinault Nation)
- Red Gates, MP Region Vice-President (Standing Rock Sioux)
- Susie Roy, MW Vice-President (Leech Lake Chippewa)
- Linday Rayon, SW Region Vice-President (Muscogee (Creek) Nation)

## Other ITO Representatives

- Melinda Newport – OK and NM Food Action Committee of Tribes (Chickasaw Nation)
- Thomas Yellowhair – WAFDPIR (Navajo Nation)
- Gale Dills – Southeast Region (Eastern Cherokee)

## Previous Work Group Members

- Mary Lane Allen – Southeast Region (Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians)
- Yunus Lakhani – WAFDPIR (Southern California Tribal Chairmens’ Association)
- Sharon Thompson – Northeast Region   (St. Regis Mohawk)
- Steve Stathopoulos - FNS-NERO

## Challenge:

**There is no perfect funding methodology that will please everyone.**

## Data Collection

- FY 2005 cost category data (salaries, building lease/rent, utilities, supplies, equipment, insurance, tailgating, vehicle and equipment maintenance)
- Matching rates and amounts
- BIA approved indirect cost rates and amounts
- Number of full-time equivalent positions

## Cost Drivers and Other Cost Considerations

- Participation
- Service Delivery:
- 	- basic operations
- 	- number of warehouses
- 	- number and type of issuance outlets
- 	- tailgating and home delivery

## Cost Variables Beyond the Controlof the Work Group 

- Geographic Area
- Tribal Match
- Indirect Cost Rate
- Tribal/State Human Resource Policies

## Challenge:

- How to factor specific cost drivers when there is significant variation from ITO to ITO:
- Monthly tailgates range from
- 	1 to 62, and cover 70 to 6400 miles
- Tribal matching ranges from 0% to 74%
- Geographic areas range from 40 acres to
- 	17 million acres
- BIA approved indirect cost rates range from
- 	0% to 68%

## Concepts: Potential Components

- Tiering for economies of scale
- Per participant amounts
- Base grant amounts
- Grant amounts based on specific cost drivers
- Set aside for ITO/FNS Regional Office  negotiation

## Proposals Considered

- The work group developed and evaluated            _**14**_ separate proposals that incorporate variations of these potential components

## Guidelines:

- Is equitable
- Is easily understood
- Is administratively efficient
- Provides adequate funding for the smallest ITOs
- Considers operational differences among the ITOs

## Guidelines:

- Maintains the ability of the ITOs to negotiate funding to ensure that operational differences are properly funded
- Includes a gradual implementation plan to minimize changes in funding from year to year
- Utilizes all appropriated funding

## Guidelines Applied to Proposals

- Would perpetuate current funding inequities
- Would not guarantee an amount for ITO/FNS Regional Office negotiation
- Would not provide sufficient funding for smaller ITOs
- No objective basis for establishing tiers; base amounts; or set asides for
- 	ITO/FNS Regional Office
- 	negotiation

## What Happens Next?

- The work group has _**not**_ made a final decision on the proposals it wishes to recommend
- The work group welcomes your
- 	comments on the proposals
- 	considered to date, and suggestions
- 	for additional proposals
- The work group recognizes that your comments cannot be construed as representative of your Tribal Council or State agency

## Where to Submit Comments

- due _**COB May 15, 2006**_
- Please provide your suggestions/
- comments to:
- Your Regional Representative
- or...

## Where to Submit Comments

- due _**COB May 15, 2006**_
- Nancy Theodore:
- 	Fax: 	703-305-1410
- 	Email: 	_[nancy.theodore@fns.usda.gov](mailto:nancy.theodore@fns.usda.gov)_
- 	Mail: 	Nancy Theodore
- 			USDA, Food and Nutrition Service
- 			Food Distribution Division
- 			3101 Park Center Drive, Room 506
- 			Alexandria, VA 22302

## What Happens Next?

- The work group will consider your input and develop a preliminary recommendation
- The preliminary recommendation will be sent to Tribal and State officials for comment (with a 90 day comment period)
- The preliminary recommendation may contain one or more proposals

## What Happens Next?

- You will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary recommendation
- The work group will consider the comments received on the preliminary recommendation in forming its final recommendation, which will go to FNS officials

## For More Information 

- FNS website:
- _[http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/fdpir](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/programs/fdpir)_
- Click on:
- FDPIR Funding Workgroup Home Page

## Question & Answer Period

## 2006 NAFDPIR Conference

- USDA General Session

## Wednesday’s Agenda

- Farm Bill Reauthorization
- FY 2007 President's Budget
- FY 2006 Bison Purchase
- FDPIR Food Package Review
- Commodity Acceptability Progress Reports

## Wednesday’s Agenda

- FNS Handbook 501 Changes
- New FDPIR Management Evaluation Module
- Nutrition Education
- FNS Response to 2005 NAFDPIR Resolution

## Farm Bill Reauthorization

## Farm Bill Reauthorization

- Authorizing legislation for FDPIR and other USDA programs expires October 1, 2007
- FNS held a series of listening sessions across the country from September–November 2005
- Interested parties were invited to help FNS identify needed changes to existing legislation
- On July 26, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, Under Secretary Bost met with Tribal leaders and other representatives

## FDPIR Recommendations

- Increase funding for FDPIR administration
- Establish a more equitable method for allocating FDPIR administrative funds
- Provide separate funding for nutrition education
- Provide separate funding for infrastructure
- Conform the FDPIR medical deduction to Food Stamp Program

## FDPIR Recommendations

- Reinstate the Prime Vendor Program
- Increase funding for expansion of the DoD Fresh Produce Program
- Provide additional funds to include frozen ground bison and frozen bison stew meat as permanent items in the food package
- Allow unobligated administrative funds to be carried-over from one year to the next

## FDPIR Recommendations

- Improve delivery and storage of commodities
- Develop culturally-relevant nutrition education for FDPIR
- Prorate Tribal per-capita payments
- Allow Native Americans not living on the reservation to participate in FDPIR

## Farm Bill Reauthorization

- USDA is considering  these recommendations, and is working on its proposals for the 2007 Farm Bill

## Farm Bill Reauthorization

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FY 2007President’s Budget

## FY 2007 President’s Budget:

- 	Administrative = _**$26.4 million**_
- 	($1.3 million increase over FY 2006)
- 	Food Costs = _**$51.1 million**_
- 	($328,000 decrease from FY 2006)
- 	Nutrition Education = _**$1 million**_

## FDPIR Nutrition EducationBudget Proposal

- To increase the likelihood that FDPIR participants will make healthy food choices and choose and active lifestyles consistent with the *Dietary Guidelines for Americans* and *MyPyramid.gov*
- Follow the model of the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program (FSNEP)
- Incorporate the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Guiding Principles

## FDPIR Nutrition EducationBudget Proposal

- Interested ITOs and State agencies will be asked to submit proposals to provide nutrition education services to a targeted audience in an area not served by FSNEP
- Special consideration will be given to culturally-based interventions that have been shown to be effective with Native American populations
- Grants will be distributed to the most promising proposals

## FY 2007 President’s Budget

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FY 2006 Bison Purchase

## Bison: Background

- Since 2001, Congress has earmarked funds for the purchase of bison for FDPIR
- Bison has been provided as a bonus item, in addition to the other meat items in the food package
- Up to $3 million in FY 2001-2003
- 	Up to $4 million in FY 2004-2005
- FY 2006: no less than $3 million

## Bison Purchases: Current System

- _Congress_: Determines **WHO** we buy from (stated in appropriation legislation)
- _FNS, AMS, ITOs_: Determine **WHAT** products we offer
- _ITOs_: Determine **HOW MUCH** of each product we buy

## FY 2006 Bison Preliminary Orders

- 			**	**

|  | Prelim.
Orders
(Cases) | Rounded
To Truck
Loads
(Cases) | Estimated Cost per Case | Estimated Total Cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ground Bison | 9,308 | 9000 | $150.00 | $1,350,000 |
| Ground Buffalo | 4773 | 5000 | $184.00 | $920,000 |
| Canned Stew | 9,344 | 9000 | $66.60 | $599,400 |

## Actual Cost Per Pound

|  | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006
(YTD) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ground Bison | $3.02 | $3.38 | $3.59
($3.75 est) |
| Ground Buffalo | $4.87 | $5.48 | ($4.00-$4.60 est) |
| Canned Stew | $1.26 | $1.47 | $1.64
($1.85 est) |

## FY 2006 Bison Purchases YTD

| Ground Bison | 4000 cases |
| --- | --- |
| Ground Buffalo | -- |
| Canned Stew | 9000 cases
 |

## Planned Deliveries to Federal Inventory

| Ground 
Bison | May 2006
July – September 2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Ground 
Buffalo | December 2006 – January 2007
  |
| Canned 
Stew | March – May 2006 |

## FY 2006 Bison Purchase

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FDPIR Food Package Review

## Food Package Review

- Review cycle
- Your representatives are:
- 	Tony Nertoli, Sault Ste. Marie
- 	Ray Capoeman, Quinault
- 	Red Gates, Standing Rock Sioux
- 	Roxanna Newsom, Chickasaw Nation
- 	Betty Jo Graveen, Lac du Flambeau
- 	Lorraine Davis, Navajo Nation
- 	Pat Roberts, Menominee

## Food Package Review

- The work group also includes nutrition and health experts from:
- Menominee Tribal Health Clinic
- Chickasaw Health System
- Center for Disease Control & Prevention
- Crow/Northern Cheyenne Indian Hospital
- FNS Nutritionists

## FDPIR Food Package Review

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## Commodity Acceptability Progress Reports

## CAP Reports

- Policy Memo FD-053 (March 24, 2006) suspends reporting for FY 2006
- By law, FNS must ensure that information is collected every 2 years on the types and forms of commodities that are most useful to participants

## CAP Reports

- FNS is undertaking an assessment of the CAP Report and other means of collecting commodity acceptability information
- We’re asking for your input on the CAP Report
- Please submit comments to:
- Your FNS Regional Office
- _[Rosalind.Cleveland@fns.usda.gov](mailto:Rosalind.Cleveland@fns.usda.gov)__ _

## CAP Reports

- If you would like to provide feedback on the commodities offered under FDPIR:
- FNS website:
- _[www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/caps](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/caps/commodityfeedback.htm)__[/](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/caps/commodityfeedback.htm)_
- _[commodityfeedback.htm](http://devel.public.fnsnet/fdd/caps/commodityfeedback.htm)_

## CAP

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FNS Handbook 501 Changes

## FNS Handbook 501 Changes

**August 2005:**
- Incorporated policy memos and regulatory provisions since December 1998
- Updated terminology
- Added list of acronyms
- Updated forms in the Exhibits
- Added new exhibits (7 CFR Part 277 and 7 CFR Part 3016)

## FNS Handbook 501 Changes

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## New FDPIR Management Evaluation Module

## New FDP Management Evaluation Modules

- FNS is revising the Management Evaluation modules used in reviewing all Food Distribution Programs
- Goal:
- Consistent
- Easy to use
- Accurate

## 7 modules:
FDPIR
TEFAP
CSFP
Schools
Processing
Warehouse Management
Administration 

- FDPIR
- TEFAP
- CSFP
- Schools
- Processing
- Warehouse Management
- Administration

- New FDP Management Evaluation Modules

## FDPIR Management Evaluation Module

**Streamlined the review process:**
- Included regulatory references and policy
- Incorporated checklists where appropriate
- Eliminate redundancy

## FDPIR Management Evaluation Module

- Initial review of FDPIR module is complete
- FNS Regional Offices will be testing the module in the field
- They will report back on what works and what doesn’t
- FNS will make final revisions to the module based on these comments

## FDPIR Management Evaluation Module

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FDPIR Nutrition Education

## FDPIR Nutrition Education

**What’s New?**
- $1 million in FY 2007 President’s Budget
- Create a FDPIR Nutrition Education web page
- Establish an electronic-based listserv devoted to FDPIR Nutrition Education issues
- Conduct an assessment of FDPIR Nutrition Education activities and needs

## FDPIR Nutrition Education

*Comments?*
*Questions?*

## FNS Response to 2005 NAFDPIR Resolution

## 2005-01: Affirms NAFDPIR’s Support of S.1115 to Amend the Tax Code

- Does not involve or require action by FNS

## 2005-02: Request to Include Bison Stew Meat and Ground Bison as Permanent Items in the Food Package

- FNS does not support because of the high cost of bison meat
- Frozen ground bison = **$3.59-$4.60** per pound
- 	Frozen bison stew meat = **$4.30 **per pound
- 	Frozen ground beef = **$1.44 **per pound
- If price differential decreases, this will be referred to the FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group

## Question & Answer Period