Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series 

The Office of Policy Support 

Special Nutrition Programs Report No. FD-13-TEFAP 

WHITE PAPER ON THE EMERGENCY FOOD 

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TEFAP) 

Final Report 

 August 2013 
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider
August 2013 

Special Nutrition Programs 

Report Number: FD-13-TEFAP 

WHITE PAPER ON THE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM (TEFAP)

Final Report

Authors: 

Charlotte Cabili 

Esa Eslami 

Ronette Briefel 

Submitted By: Submitted to: 

Mathematica Policy Research Office of Policy Support 

1100 1st Street, NE, 12th Floor USDA, Food and Nutrition Service 

Washington, DC 20002 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014 

202-484-9220 Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 

Project Director: Project Officer: 

Charlotte Cabili Dennis Ranalli 

This study was conducted under GSA Contract #AG-3198-K-13-0010 with the Food and Nutrition 

Service. 

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service website: http://www.fns.usda.gov/researchand-analysis/

Suggested Citation: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, White Paper on 

the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), by Charlotte Cabili, Esa Eslami, and Ronette Briefel. 

Project Officer, Dennis Ranalli. Alexandra, VA: August 2013. 
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider 
iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) program that for three decades has helped supplement the diets of low-income Americans, 

including seniors, by providing them with emergency food and nutrition assistance at no cost 

(USDA, FNS 2013a). A statutory funding formula allocates TEFAP resources to States based on 

indicators of need, including poverty and unemployment levels. States distribute USDA Foods to 

eligible recipient agencies, typically food banks. These agencies distribute the food to emergency 

feeding organizations that directly serve households and individuals in need. 

TEFAP’s State-administered infrastructure for distributing food to communities is wellintegrated in the local emergency food assistance system. The program allows for distribution to 

those who need TEFAP foods most, particularly during economic recessions and disasters such as 

the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. In recent years, TEFAP contributions to the emergency 

food assistance system have become increasingly important as other supports, such as private food 

donations, have not kept pace with demand. In addition, all USDA Foods offered through TEFAP 

are domestically grown, which supports farmers and rural communities. 

TEFAP Serves Households and Individuals in Need 

TEFAP participants1

 are a diverse group, with variable needs for emergency food assistance. 

They include low-income households and individuals (including families with children, seniors, and 

the newly unemployed) who obtain food for home consumption from food pantries, as well as lowincome and homeless families and individuals who obtain meals from soup kitchens and shelters. 

Nationally, 5 percent of low-income households used a food pantry and 0.6 percent used a soup 

kitchen in 2011 (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012a). In 2011, nearly 15 percent of all U.S. households and 

38 percent of low-income U.S. households were food insecure, meaning their access to adequate 

food was limited by a lack of money or other resources (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012b). Among those 

households using emergency food assistance, roughly three-fourths are food insecure (ColemanJensen et al. 2012a; Mabli et al. 2010; Briefel et al. 2003). 

TEFAP Serves Emergency Food Providers 

An estimated $547 million worth of food was made available to States in FY 2012, representing 

an increase of more than $83 million from FY 2011 (USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for 

Committee on Appropriations, FY 2014). Congress appropriated more than $308 million for 

TEFAP in FY 2012―more than $260 million to purchase food and $48 million for administrative 

support for State and local agencies. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) also purchases 

domestic agricultural products with funds authorized by Section 32 of the Agriculture Act of 1935. 

These USDA Foods are “bonus” foods because they are not credited against food purchases with 

appropriated funds. A total of $304 million worth of bonus foods was distributed through TEFAP 

in FY 2012. 

 1 Limited data are available on the unique characteristics of TEFAP participants. TEFAP participants are defined 

here as those who obtain emergency food from emergency feeding organizations that may receive foods through 

TEFAP. 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research 

iv 

TEFAP distributed over 723 million pounds of USDA Foods in FY 2012. This included nearly 

306 million pounds of fruits and vegetables, 180 million pounds of meat, 105 million pounds of milk 

and juice, 75 million pounds of grains, and 58 million pounds of other USDA Foods like soups, 

tomato-based sauces, eggs, and nut products. TEFAP foods account for approximately 20 percent 

of all foods distributed through Feeding America’s food banks and feeding agencies―a network that 

comprises almost 80 percent of all food banks in the country and served roughly 5.7 million people 

(or one in 50 Americans) in any given week in 2009 (Mabli et al. 2010). In 2009, TEFAP provided 

food to more than half of Feeding America food pantries and roughly one-third of its soup kitchens 

and shelters (Mabli et al. 2010). 

TEFAP Serves Households and Individuals Who Do Not Participate in Other 

USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs 

In 2009, more than one-third of TEFAP participants using soup kitchens and about one-fifth 

using food pantries obtained emergency food assistance from several sources but did not report 

participating in other nutrition assistance programs (Mabli et al. 2010). Households and individuals 

who obtain emergency food from multiple sources but not from other USDA programs may be the 

most heavily dependent on TEFAP-supported emergency food assistance. They are more likely to 

face homelessness, have very low food security, and suffer greater material hardships (Briefel et al. 

2003). For participants who report using other USDA nutrition assistance programs, TEFAP 

supplements their benefits and may expand their ability to meet their nutritional needs (ColemanJensen et al. 2012a; Briefel et al. 2003). 

TEFAP Provides Nutritious Foods to the Emergency Food Assistance System 

USDA Foods available through TEFAP reflect USDA’s strides in making the foods consistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, with reduced levels of fat, sodium, and sugar. For 

example, TEFAP offers low-sodium or no-salt-added canned beans and vegetables, and canned 

fruits are packed in extra-light sucrose syrup or slightly sweetened fruit juice. A 2012 study assessed 

the nutritional quality of TEFAP foods using two measures: (1) a Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI2005) score and (2) the contribution of TEFAP foods to recommended USDA Food Patterns 

(Zimmerman et al. 2012). TEFAP foods as delivered (that is, as selected by States) received a score 

of 89 out of a possible 100 on the HEI-2005. By comparison, the 2005 U.S. food supply included a 

less nutritious mix of foods, receiving a total HEI-2005 score of 55. TEFAP foods provided roughly 

70 percent or more of recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables, grains, protein, and oils for a 

2,000 calorie diet, and more than 100 percent of the daily recommended amounts of specific food 

subgroups, including red and orange vegetables; legumes; refined grains; meat, poultry, and eggs; and 

nuts. Moreover, these foods were low in calories from solid fats and added sugars. 
1 

I. PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) program that helps supplement the diets of low-income Americans, including seniors, by 

providing them with emergency food and nutrition assistance at no cost (USDA, FNS 2013a). The 

inception of TEFAP in 1981 has been cited as a significant factor in the creation of the emergency 

food assistance system in its current form (Ohls et al. 2002). Moreover, substantial amounts of 

TEFAP foods have been distributed through the emergency food system during the last three 

decades (Ohls et al. 2002; USDA, FNS 2013a). 

A. Brief History of TEFAP 

In 1981, TEFAP was first authorized to distribute surplus commodities under the Temporary 

Emergency Food Assistance Program in order to help supplement the diets of low-income 

Americans, including seniors. In 1983, the Emergency Food Assistance Act stated that TEFAP 

would provide other types of surplus foods. In 1988, in response to the depletion of some of the 

surplus foods used by TEFAP, the Hunger Prevention Act appropriated funding specifically for the 

purchase of commodity foods for TEFAP. In 1990, the name of the program was officially changed 

to The Emergency Food Assistance Program. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 changed TEFAP by (1) combining it with commodity distribution 

programs for charitable institutions and emergency feeding organizations (EFOs), (2) defining a 

formula for allocating TEFAP foods to States, and (3) requiring that a portion of Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (then known as the Food Stamp Program) appropriations be 

used for TEFAP food purchases. 

B. TEFAP Foods and Program Structure 

USDA makes a wide variety of domestically produced foods available to States through 

TEFAP. USDA Foods are purchased by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and Farm 

Service Agency. TEFAP foods funds are applied toward the costs of USDA Foods, referred to as 

“entitlement” foods. AMS also purchases domestic agricultural products with funds authorized by 

Section 32 of the Agriculture Act of 1935. These purchases support farm income and relieve 

downward pressures on prices. These USDA Foods are “bonus” foods because they are not credited 

against each State’s entitlement. Available TEFAP foods include meats, vegetables, fruits, juices, 

beans, cereals, grains, and nuts. Most foods are shelf stable and do not require further processing 

prior to distribution, although frozen meats are distributed to organizations with freezers. A list of 

TEFAP entitlement foods available to State agencies for fiscal year (FY) 2013 is included in 

Appendix A. 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which administers TEFAP, coordinates food 

processing and packaging, State food orders and delivery, and the distribution of administrative 

funds. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the pathways through which TEFAP foods flow 

from USDA to households and individuals in need. States are entitled to a specific allotment of 

TEFAP foods based on poverty and unemployment indices.2

 States manage the distribution of 

 2 An overview of State funding allocation procedures and accountability policies is included in Appendix B. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

2 

TEFAP foods through a network of eligible recipient agencies (ERAs), including food banks and 

community action agencies. ERAs coordinate the distribution of food to EFOs, which include food 

pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters. Just over half of EFOs are led by faith-based organizations or 

religion-affiliated nonprofit agencies, and about one-third are led by private nonprofit organizations 

(Mabli et al. 2010). Faith-based organizations are more likely to run food pantry and kitchen 

programs, whereas private nonprofit organizations are more likely to run shelter programs. EFOs 

provide TEFAP foods to low-income households and individuals at times of need. EFOs may 

provide prepackaged foods for home consumption or serve meals prepared with TEFAP food 

ingredients to eligible clients. EFOs receive other food sources from private donations, food rescue 

programs, local farm produce, or other sources; they may also purchase food. 

Figure 1. The Flow of Emergency Food from TEFAP and Other Sources to TEFAP Participants and Other 

Emergency Food Recipients 

Note: This figure does not capture food pathways during times of disaster. Shaded boxes indicate the flow of 

foods through TEFAP. Community action agencies may directly serve TEFAP participants and other 

emergency food recipients. 

Each State establishes criteria for determining which households are income eligible to receive 

TEFAP foods for home consumption to ensure that assistance is provided to the households most 

in need. States may use income eligibility criteria from means-tested federal, State, or local programs, 

or adjust income criteria to ensure that households most in need receive assistance. Households and 

individuals that receive prepared meals in soup kitchens and homeless shelters are not subject to an 

income-eligibility test. 

National TEFAP 

State Distributing 

Agencies 

Local 

State 

Beneficiaries

Eligible Recipient Agencies 

(Food banks and 

community action agencies) 

Emergency Feeding Organizations 

 (Food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters) 

TEFAP participants and other emergency food recipients 

Hunger relief charity 

organizations (e.g., 

Feeding America) 

State food bank 

associations 

Food purchases, 

private donations, food 

rescue programs, local 

farm produce, and 

other food sources 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

3 

II. TEFAP RESPONDS TO THE NEEDS OF U.S. LOW-INCOME 

HOUSEHOLDS AND INDIVIDUALS 

A. Food Insecurity and Barriers to Food Access Among U.S. Households and 

Individuals 

In 2011, nearly 15 percent of all U.S. households and 38 percent of low-income3

 U.S. 

households were food insecure, meaning their access to adequate food was limited by a lack of 

money or other resources (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012a, 2012b). Very low food security—meaning 

that household members skipped meals or otherwise reduced their food intake—was experienced by 

5.7 percent of all U.S. households, an increase from 2010 and a return to 2008 and 2009 levels. 

Nearly 16 percent of low-income U.S. households had very low food security in 2011. Nationally, 5 

percent of low-income households used a food pantry and less than 1 percent used an emergency 

kitchen in 2011 (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012a). 

Low-income individuals experience barriers to food access, meaning the accessibility to food 

retailers that offer healthful and affordable foods is limited. Barriers for low-income individuals 

include high food prices, travel costs and time needed to go shopping, and lack of available healthful 

food options. Further disparities exist among low-income individuals, in that low-income people in 

rural areas have less access to food than those in urban areas (Ver Ploeg et al. 2009). 

In 2009, individuals and families seeking emergency food assistance through the Feeding 

America network tended to endure more severe material hardships than the general low-income U.S. 

population. They were more likely to experience very low food security, homelessness, 

unemployment, and other material hardships that result in acute need―both episodic and 

chronic―for emergency food assistance (Mabli et al. 2010). 

Addressing the needs of U.S. households and individuals has become more challenging in the 

face of declining local food donations and rising food prices. Recent national trends indicate that 

local food donations to EFOs have declined and that this trend will continue (Feeding America 

2011; Bello 2012). For example, advances in technology have allowed grocery stores to control 

inefficiencies, which have led to a reduction in food rescue donations. Similarly, rising food 

costs―particularly in 2011, because of a drought that reduced agricultural supplies―have had 

implications for private food and cash donations. Private food donations have decreased because of 

higher food prices, and private cash donations to EFOs have less purchasing power in pounds of 

food made available. Food prices continue to rise, so this trend may endure for some time. In 

addition, rural America suffers from a longstanding lack of an emergency food assistance 

infrastructure, such as transportation, storage, and refrigeration systems and facilities. 

B. TEFAP Serves U.S. Households and Individuals in Need and Farmers 

In FY 2012, an estimated $547 million in TEFAP food resources were made available to States. 

For some perspective, TEFAP foods account for approximately 20 percent of all foods distributed 

through Feeding America’s network of food banks and feeding agencies4

—a network that comprises 

 3 Low-income is defined here as less than 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. 

4 In 2012, Feeding America estimates it distributed more than 3 billion pounds of food to food pantries, soup 

kitchens, and other emergency feeding facilities (Feeding America n.d.). 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

4 

almost 80 percent of all food banks in the country, and served roughly 5.7 million different people 

(or one in 50 Americans) in any given week in 2009 (Mabli et al. 2010). In 2009, TEFAP provided 

food to 54, 33, and 31 percent of Feeding America food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters, 

respectively. 

Each year, States and EFOs plan around the food quantities and types they expect to receive 

through TEFAP. For example, EFOs select TEFAP foods according to where private donations fall 

short and choose foods based on their storage facilities. A survey of pantries, soup kitchens, and 

shelters indicated that the most desired foods for distribution to households and use in meals 

included protein foods (i.e., meat, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts) and grain products (i.e., bread, 

cereal, rice, and pasta (Mabli et al. 2010). EFOs value TEFAP foods because they fill a gap in the 

array of donated foods, offsetting the variable quantity and quality of private food donations 

(Feeding America n.d.).5 

TEFAP also contributes to the food safety net in times of disaster. TEFAP foods may be 

redesignated for disaster relief efforts when necessary. Moreover, TEFAP has the flexibility to 

deploy USDA Foods quickly to areas of need since it is a program with an existing emergency 

feeding network. For example, TEFAP foods were made available to New Jersey and New York 

during Superstorm Sandy in 2012 (Baertlein 2012). To support disaster relief efforts, FNS 

reimburses States for transport costs to move TEFAP foods to other in-State areas. Additionally, 

TEFAP participants who have evacuated their homes and are temporarily living in areas not 

normally served by TEFAP may continue to pick up TEFAP foods from the EFO in the area they 

evacuated. 

All USDA Foods offered through TEFAP are domestically grown, which supports farmers and 

rural communities and stimulates the economy. A 1994 study conducted by USDA’s Economic 

Research Service found that TEFAP increased farm receipts both through entitlement and bonus 

food purchases (Levedahl et al. 1994). Bonus foods, because they are purchased through market 

support programs, were found to have a particularly high return per dollar to farmers. Additionally, 

this study estimated that TEFAP had a higher return to farmers than a coupon-based food 

assistance program such as SNAP. More recent data to assess TEFAP’s effect on farm receipts are 

not available. 

III. TEFAP FOOD AND DOLLAR CONTRIBUTIONS 

A. TEFAP Funding Structure (Total Funding) 

Legislation currently governing TEFAP specifically differentiates between the amount of 

funding available for TEFAP food purchases and administrative costs to assist States and local 

organizations with operations. In FY 2012, Congress appropriated more than $308 million for 

TEFAP—over $260 million to purchase food, and $48 million for administrative support for States 

and local agencies. In addition to USDA Foods purchased with appropriated funds, more than $304 

million in bonus foods were distributed through TEFAP in FY 2012. The Food, Conservation, and 

 5 State food bank associations refer to nutritious TEFAP foods as “the backbone of the charitable food system” 

and cite nutritious TEFAP foods as a key reason why they have the ability “to feed more hungry people during the 

recession” (Oregon Food Bank 2013; The Greater Boston Food Bank 2013). 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

5 

Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) includes the formula for allocation of resources to States. This 

formula incorporates the size of each State’s weighted poverty and unemployment indices. 

B. Administrative Funding 

Administrative funding assists State agencies with costs associated with the processing, 

repackaging, storage, and distribution of TEFAP foods. Unless otherwise prohibited by 

appropriations legislation, States may also choose to convert their “fair share”6

 of TEFAP 

administrative funds to funds for the purchase of additional USDA Foods. Additionally, States are 

further permitted to use administrative funds to support food rescue activities, such as gleaning and 

other food recovery efforts. 

Administrative funds are designed to allow State agencies to increase the total flow of 

emergency food more effectively and efficiently and play a key role in supporting EFO’s yearly 

budgets. A survey of EFOs conducted in 2000 found that TEFAP administrative funding 

represented 12 to 27 percent of the operating budget of those food banks, food pantries, and 

emergency kitchens surveyed (Ohls et al. 2002). Program regulations require that a minimum of 40 

percent of the administrative funds allocated to each State be “passed through” to EFOs or directly 

expended by the State on their behalf. Furthermore, States are required to match in full, either as 

cash or in-kind, all administrative funds passed through to ERAs that are not EFOs. In practice, 

these requirements have resulted in TEFAP funds going almost exclusively to EFOs, with other 

types of organizations rarely participating in the program (Geldard and Bress n.d.). 

Administrative funds can be used only for approved administrative expenses or “allowable 

costs” incurred in the management of the program, such as costs associated with the transportation, 

storage, processing, and distribution of TEFAP foods and food obtained from non-federal sources. 

States may restrict costs further as they see fit. Funds made available to States or participating 

agencies but not used are turned back to the federal government and subsequently reallocated to all 

States based on the mandated formula used for the initial fund allocation. 

Between FY 2009 and FY 2012, administrative funding has remained relatively constant (at $50 

million in FY 2009 and $48 million in FY 2012; USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee 

on Appropriations, FY 2009 and FY 2014). Several administrative funding sources have been used 

during this time period. TEFAP legislation allows States to use up to 10 percent of their food 

funding for approved TEFAP administrative costs instead. In FY 2012, States chose to convert 6.7 

percent ($17.5 million) of total TEFAP food funding into administrative funds. TEFAP also 

received $50 million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

administrative funding, to be spread out equally over FY 2009 and FY 2010. In FY 2010, an 

additional $28 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC) ARRA contingency fund was reprogrammed as TEFAP administrative funds. Also 

in FY 2010, TEFAP received $6 million in Infrastructure Grants. These grants provided funding for 

local EFOs to expand and improve their infrastructure, including their storage and distribution 

facilities. More than $3 million of the funding was allocated specifically to EFOs primarily serving 

rural areas. Infrastructure funding has not been awarded since FY 2010. 

 6 State TEFAP food and administrative funds are allocated to each State based on a formula that incorporates 

weighted poverty and unemployment indices. The formula calculates a proportion of total funds for each State, referred 

to as the State’s “fair share.” 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

6 

C. TEFAP Entitlement and Bonus Foods 

Each State’s allocated TEFAP foods funds are applied toward the costs of “entitlement” food 

commodities. Additionally, each year AMS purchases “bonus” foods as part of its market support 

program. Thus, the type and amount of bonus foods that may be available for TEFAP distribution 

varies from year to year. Both entitlement and bonus foods are offered to States on a “fair share” 

basis, but only entitlement food orders are counted against States’ TEFAP food funding. 

 An estimated $547 million worth of food resources were made available in FY 2012—

representing an increase of more than $83 million from the value of food resources made available 

in FY 2011. In FY 2012, TEFAP food entitlement funding far exceeded pre-recession (FY 2007 and 

FY 2008) funding levels because the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 increased funding 

for TEFAP entitlement foods. 

The total value of entitlement and bonus foods distributed to States through TEFAP from FY 

2006 through FY 2012 is shown in Figure 2. Between FY 2008 and FY 2009, the value of TEFAP 

foods distributed to States increased by nearly 97 percent, in large part because of $100 million in 

additional funding provided by ARRA. The value of foods provided through TEFAP declined in 

each of the following two years—by 19 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2010 and 20 percent 

between FY 2010 and FY 2011. The decrease in additional entitlement funding from ARRA 

accounted for the bulk of the decrease between FY 2009 and FY 2010. However, the majority of the 

decrease between FY 2010 and FY 2011was associated with a decrease in the availability of bonus 

commodities. Between FY 2011 and FY 2012, the value of distributed bonus commodities increased 

by nearly $70 million. 

Figure 2. Total Value of TEFAP Entitlement and Bonus Foods (in Millions of Dollars) Distributed from FY 2006 

through FY 2012 

Source: USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

Note: No more than 2 percent of the annual entitlement values in Figure 2 were used for non-food costs. The 

value of TEFAP foods distributed in FY 2013 is not yet available. 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 2012

Millions

Total Entitlement Foods Bonus Foods
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

7 

Every quarter, USDA releases a list of available food items that State agencies can order using 

their entitlement food funds. USDA further specifies product availability, the value of each product, 

and when orders are to be placed. Bonus foods are offered to States based either on their fair share 

allocation or an open order basis. States may choose to accept all, part, or no part of the bonus 

offerings. However, recipient agencies must still conform to ordering standards to prevent 

overstocking. Figure 3 displays the TEFAP entitlement and bonus foods distributed to EFOs in FY 

2012. In FY 2012, TEFAP offered the following entitlement and bonus foods: 

 Fruits and vegetables. Nearly 306 million pounds (valued at $191 million) of canned, 

fresh, frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables—accounting for 42 percent by weight (and 

35 percent by cost) of all TEFAP foods. 

 Meat. Nearly 180 million pounds (valued at $226 million) of chicken, pork, beef, lamb, 

turkey, and fish—accounting for 25 percent by weight (and 42 percent by cost) of all 

TEFAP foods. 

 Milk and juice. Nearly 105 million pounds (valued at $44 million) of 1% milk and seven 

different varieties of bottled and unsweetened juice—accounting for 14 percent by 

weight (and 8 percent by cost) of all TEFAP foods. 

 Grains. More than 75 million pounds (valued at $39 million) of cereal, pasta, enriched 

white rice, and other grains and whole grains—accounting for 10 percent by weight (and 

7 percent by cost) of all TEFAP foods. 

 Sauces and vegetable oil. Nearly 31 million pounds (valued at $13 million) of tomatobased sauce and vegetable oil—accounting for 4 percent by weight (and 2 percent by 

cost) of all TEFAP foods. 

 Eggs and nut products. More than 15 million pounds (valued at $21 million) of eggs, 

peanut butter, and peanuts—accounting for 2 percent by weight (and 4 percent by cost) 

of all TEFAP foods. 

 Soup. More than 12 million pounds (valued at $10 million) of soup—accounting for 2 

percent by weight (and 2 percent by cost) of all TEFAP foods. 

In all, over 7237

 million pounds of TEFAP foods (valued at $5448 million) were distributed as 

TEFAP entitlement and bonus foods in FY 2012. 

 7 The discrepancy between the sum of the itemized food weights (724 million pounds) and total weight (723 

million pounds) is due to rounding of itemized weight values. 

8 The difference between the value of distributed entitlement and bonus foods ($544 million) and the total value of 

distributed foods cited earlier ($547 million) is due to $3 million used for non-food costs. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

8 

Figure 3. Percentage of TEFAP Entitlement and Bonus Foods by Weight and Value, FY 2012 

Source: Processed Commodities Inventory Management System (PCIMS) delivery order and contract 

information, as listed in Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, FY 2014. 

IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF TEFAP PARTICIPANTS 

TEFAP participants are defined here as those obtaining emergency food from EFOs that 

receive foods through TEFAP. These participants are a diverse group, with variable needs for food 

assistance. They include low-income households and individuals (e.g., families with children, seniors, 

and the newly unemployed) that obtain food for home consumption from food pantries, as well as 

low-income and homeless families and individuals that obtain meals from soup kitchens and 

shelters. Few studies have examined the characteristics of TEFAP participants (Fox et al. 2004). 

Appendix C includes a description of the three national data sources with information on the 

characteristics of households and individuals that obtain emergency food assistance from 

organizations that provide TEFAP foods.9

 Available information on the characteristics of these 

households and individuals is described in the next two sections. 

A. Demographics and Food Security 

In 2009, one in five TEFAP participant households reported having a senior age 65 or older, 

and the same proportion of households had a child age 5 or younger (Mabli et al. 2010). Nearly 90 

percent of TEFAP participants were U.S. citizens. Whites, blacks, and Hispanics constituted 40, 34, 

and 20 percent of all TEFAP participants, respectively. The majority of participants were 

unemployed. Most participant households had incomes of less than $1,000 per month.10 Thirteen 

 9 The three sources of participant data include December 2011 Current Population Survey Food Security 

Supplements (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012a, 2012b), a 2009 nationwide survey of Feeding America clients (Mabli et al. 

2010), and a 2001 national survey of food pantry and soup kitchen clients (Briefel et al. 2003). 

10 Government program assistance was included as a source of income. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

9 

percent of participant households had no income. One-third of adult TEFAP participants had not 

completed high school and 6 percent had completed college. Most participants (90 percent) had a 

place to live but, among these, one-fourth were late on rent or mortgage payments. 

Food pantries represent the vast majority of EFOs, and differences between food pantry and 

other participants are worth noting (Ohls et al. 2002; Mabli et al. 2010). Relative to U.S. households 

overall, food pantry participant households in 2011 were more likely to be female headed, seniors, 

black or Hispanic, and from nonmetropolitan areas (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012b). Women and 

children used food pantries to a greater extent than men, and Hispanics were more likely to use food 

pantries than soup kitchens or shelters (Mabli et al. 2010). Food pantry participants were more likely 

to have income than emergency soup kitchen and shelter participants (Mabli et al. 2010). Food 

pantries served roughly equal portions of urban and suburban/rural populations (Mabli et al. 2010). 

In contrast, men represented the vast majority of soup kitchen and shelter participants. Most shelter 

participants (83 percent) were homeless, and 42 percent of shelter participants had had no income in 

the previous month (Mabli et al. 2010). Soup kitchens and shelters served predominantly urban 

participants (Mabli et al. 2010). 

Roughly three-fourths of emergency food assistance participants are food insecure (ColemanJensen et al. 2012b; Mabli et al. 2010; Briefel et al. 2003).11 The proportions of very low food security 

among soup kitchen and food pantry participant households in 2011 exceeded the proportions in 

prior years. Half of soup kitchen participant households had very low food security in 2011 versus 

roughly 40 percent in 2009 and 2001. More than one-third of food pantry participants had very low 

food security in 2011 versus 35 percent and 25 percent in 2009 and 2001. 

B. TEFAP Serves Households and Individuals That Do Not Participate in Other 

USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs 

For some U.S. households and individuals, TEFAP may be the only source of USDA nutrition 

assistance. TEFAP participants eligible for other nutrition assistance programs may not participate 

because of stigma, perception of ineligibility, or the perceived barriers associated with applying 

(Mabli et al. 2010; Briefel et al. 2003). Other TEFAP participants may not be eligible for other 

USDA nutrition assistance program benefits (Briefel et al. 2003). For TEFAP participants that do 

participate in other nutrition assistance programs, TEFAP supplements the benefits they receive and 

may expand their ability to meet their household’s nutritional needs (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012b; 

Briefel et al. 2003). Among low-income U.S. households that obtained food from a food pantry or 

soup kitchen in 2011, one-third or more (33 and 40 percent, respectively) did not participate in other 

nutrition assistance programs, including SNAP, WIC, and the National School Lunch Program 

(Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012b). In 2009, about one-fifth of TEFAP participants using food pantries 

and more than one-third using soup kitchens obtained emergency food assistance from several 

sources but did not report participating in other nutrition assistance programs (Mabli et al. 

2010).These proportions were lower in 2001, when one-fifth of food pantry participant households 

and one-fourth of soup kitchen participant households did not participate in other USDA nutrition 

assistance programs (Briefel et al. 2003). However, lower percentages of nonparticipation in 

 11 In 2009, Feeding America households were administered a shortened six-item food security survey instrument, 

compared to households that were administered the full instrument in 2001 (Briefel et al. 2003) and 2011 (ColemanJensen et al. 2012a). 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

10 

nutrition assistance programs may have been reported in part because pantry and soup kitchen 

participants were asked to include participation in additional nutrition assistance programs, such as 

child care feeding programs and senior meal programs. 

The most recent study that compared the characteristics of food pantry and soup kitchen 

participant households that did not report participating in other nutrition assistance programs to 

those that did was in 2001 (Briefel et al. 2003). Overall, emergency food assistance participant 

households not participating in other nutrition assistance programs tended to have had higher levels 

of income, lower poverty levels, and were less likely to have very low food security compared to 

households participating in USDA nutrition assistance programs. However, food pantry and soup 

kitchen participant households utilizing more than one source of emergency food assistance (but no 

other nutrition assistance programs) were distinctly less advantaged. These participants experienced 

higher rates of very low food security and homelessness than their counterparts that were obtaining 

food from one emergency food assistance source. It is likely that the needs of these participants 

extend beyond food. In fact, a significant proportion of emergency food organizations provide 

clothing, information and referrals, and other assistance beyond food (Mabli et al. 2010).12

V. NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF TEFAP FOODS 

In FY 2013, about 80 USDA Foods were available for distribution through TEFAP. USDA has 

made a concerted effort over the past 20 years to improve the nutritional profile of USDA Foods 

and ensure that they are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). In particular, 

USDA has decreased levels of fat, sodium, and sugar in USDA Foods over time. For example, 

USDA offers low-sodium or no-salt-added canned beans and vegetables, and all juice and 

applesauce is unsweetened. Additionally, all canned fruits are packed in extra-light sucrose syrup or 

slightly sweetened fruit juice. The types of foods available through TEFAP depend on State 

preferences and agricultural market conditions (Zimmerman et al. 2012). 

There is limited research available on the diet quality of TEFAP participants and the role of 

TEFAP USDA Foods in their diets (Fox et al. 2004). TEFAP participants are not systematically 

sampled and assessed for their total food consumption or usual dietary intake. Only one study to 

date has examined the nutrient contribution of USDA Foods provided through TEFAP to 

participants’ overall diet (Ponza et al. 1990). A 2012 study by Zimmerman and colleagues examined 

the nutritional quality of USDA Foods offered and delivered to several USDA programs, including 

TEFAP. Researchers used two measures to assess the nutritional quality of USDA Foods distributed 

through TEFAP: (1) the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005) and (2) the contribution of USDA 

Foods to recommended USDA Food Patterns. Findings from this study provide the most up-todate information on the nutritional quality of foods13 provided by TEFAP and are summarized 

below. 

 12 EFOs provide a variety of non-food services. For example, four in 10 food pantries, one-third of kitchens, and 

two-thirds of shelters provide information and referral services. Three-fourths of shelters provide clothing (Mabli et al. 

2010). 

13 The nutritional quality of TEFAP foods is not representative of TEFAP participant diet quality, as TEFAP 

participants may consume foods from other sources that contribute to their overall dietary quality. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

11 

A. Healthy Eating Index-2005 Scores for TEFAP USDA Foods 

The HEI-2005 is a measure of diet quality that assesses adherence to the 2005 DGAs. It is a 

numerical score that represents the extent to which a diet (or any mix of foods) is consistent with 

recommendations in the 2005 DGAs. The index includes an overall score—a perfect score is 100—

as well as 12 component scores that measure different food groups and nutrients emphasized in the 

2005 DGAs (for example, whole grains, saturated fat, and sodium). The HEI-2005 has been adopted 

by the USDA as the tool used to monitor the diet quality of the U.S. population overall, as well as 

progress toward healthier eating habits among nutrition assistance program participants (Guenther 

et al. 2007). Although the tool has been used primarily to assess the quality of diets consumed by 

individuals, density-based standards make it possible to use the HEI-2005 to assess the quality of 

any mix of foods, including USDA Foods provided by TEFAP.14 

Zimmerman and colleagues (2012) examined HEI-2005 scores for TEFAP USDA Foods 

among entitlement foods and entitlement plus bonus foods. Scores were estimated for foods ‘as 

delivered’ (that is, USDA Foods selected by States in consideration of EFO need and participant 

demand).15 Total HEI-2005 scores for TEFAP foods as delivered were high for both entitlement 

foods and entitlement plus bonus foods. Scores were 83 (entitlement foods only) and 89 points 

(entitlement and bonus foods) out of a possible 100 points. In comparison, the 2005 U.S. food 

supply received a total HEI-2005 score of 55 out of 100 (Reedy et al. 2010), and the average 

American and SNAP participants’ diet received scores of 58 and 52, respectively (Zimmerman et al. 

2012). 

HEI-2005 scores for TEFAP foods were generally higher when bonus foods were included. 

Bonus foods delivered through TEFAP provided increased amounts (by weight) of meats, fruits, 

and juices, which contributed to higher HEI-2005 scores for several components (Zimmerman et al. 

2012). Thus, the availability of bonus foods―particularly meats, fruits, and juices―positively 

contributed to the quality of TEFAP foods. 

To more effectively combat food insecurity and control costs associated with valuable food 

resources, food pantries are more commonly exercising a “client choice” model of distribution, in 

which individuals select preferred foods and/or receive education about selecting healthful foods. 

The high nutritional quality of TEFAP foods as delivered suggests that TEFAP participants receive 

healthier foods according to their preferences. This is particularly salient for food pantry efforts to 

ensure nutritious foods as delivered are consumed rather than wasted (Carson 2008). 

B. Contribution of TEFAP Foods to Recommended USDA Food Patterns 

Zimmerman and colleagues (2012) also assessed the potential contribution of TEFAP foods to 

recommended USDA Food Pattern amounts. The USDA Food Patterns are based on the 2010 

DGAs and identify daily amounts of foods to eat from five food groups and their subgroups, as well 

 14 Additional details about the HEI-2005 components and standards for scoring are provided in Appendix D. 

15 HEI-2005 scores were also estimated for foods “as offered” to assess the foods USDA made available to 

participating agencies or participants. However, as noted by Zimmerman and colleagues (2012), the “as offered” 

estimates may not reflect the actual variety and quantity of USDA Foods available to all participants in TEFAP. Thus, 

estimates focus on TEFAP foods as delivered. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

12 

as healthful amounts of oils and limits on calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS).16

Amounts of food groups provided by TEFAP entitlement and bonus foods were standardized to a 

per-2,000 calorie basis and compared with Food Pattern recommendations for an individual with a 

2,000 calorie diet. 

Findings from the study revealed that TEFAP entitlement and bonus foods as delivered 

provided roughly 70 percent or more of the daily recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables, total 

grains, protein foods, and oils for an individual at the 2,000 calorie level (Figure 4). In comparison, 

TEFAP foods as delivered contributed only 39 percent of the recommended maximum limit on 

SoFAS calories. For several food groups not displayed, TEFAP foods as delivered provided more 

than 100 percent of the daily recommendations on a 2,000 calorie basis. This pattern of findings was 

observed for red and orange vegetables (101%); legumes (581%); refined grains (168%); meat, 

poultry, eggs (156%); and nuts, seeds, soy products (489%). TEFAP entitlement and bonus foods as 

delivered were low in whole grains, dairy foods, and dark green vegetables relative to 

recommendations; however, TEFAP offers a healthful mix of USDA Foods that follow the DGAs 

including brown rice, whole grain pasta and cereals, and low-fat milk.17

 

 16 Comparisons between TEFAP foods and recommended USDA Food Pattern amounts from Zimmerman and 

colleagues (2012) exclude calories from alcohol (that are included in SoFAAS) because the USDA Food Pattern specifies 

limits on calories from SoFAS. 

17 TEFAP offers fewer dark green leafy vegetables because these foods tend to be perishable and most TEFAP 

foods are shelf stable. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

13 

Figure 4. Percentage Contribution of TEFAP Foods to USDA Food Pattern Recommendations, Based on a 

2,000 Calorie Diet 

Source: Source: “The Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition 

Programs.” Table 3-42: Food group and subgroup content of TEFAP Entitlement + Bonus USDA Foods 

on a per 2,000 calorie basis compared to 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 

calories. Zimmerman, T.P, S. Dixit-Joshi, B. Sun, J. Hu, F. Glantz, and E. Eaker. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, January 2012. 

Note: Figure does not display food subgroups including red and orange vegetables; dark green or starchy 

vegetables; legumes; refined grains; meat, poultry, eggs; seafood; nuts, seeds, soy products; or whole 

grains. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

TEFAP’s State-administered infrastructure for managing and distributing food is well-integrated 

in the local emergency food assistance system and allows for scaling up distribution to those who 

need TEFAP foods most―particularly in times of economic recession and disaster occurrences. 

Roughly three-fourths of American households accessing emergency food assistance are food 

insecure. TEFAP helps millions of low-income Americans who are experiencing short-term or 

longer-term food insecurity, or food shortages due to a disaster. In FY 2012, more than $308 million 

of TEFAP entitlement foods (excluding bonus) and administrative funding was distributed to States 

according to need, and the President’s FY 2014 Budget requests $318 million in entitlement and 

administrative funds. In FY 2011, TEFAP foods accounted for approximately 20 percent of all 

foods distributed through Feeding America’s national network of food banks—a network that 

comprises almost 80 percent of all food banks in the country (Mabli et al. 2010). TEFAP provides 

participants with USDA Foods of high nutritional quality, using funding that supports both the 

system’s infrastructure and American farmers. 

To date, little research has been conducted to examine the diet quality of TEFAP participants 

and the role of TEFAP foods in their diets (Fox et al. 2004). However, a 2012 study investigating 

the nutritional quality of TEFAP foods suggests that these foods can make positive contributions to 

participants’ diets (Zimmerman et al. 2012). In particular, TEFAP bonus foods improved the 

nutritional quality of TEFAP foods delivered to organizations, as measured by the HEI-2005. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

14 

TEFAP participants include low-income families with children, seniors, and the newly 

unemployed who obtain food for home consumption from food pantries, as well as low-income and 

homeless families and individuals who obtain meals from soup kitchens and shelters. For some 

participants, TEFAP may be the only source of USDA nutrition assistance. For others who do 

participate in other USDA nutrition assistance programs, emergency food assistance supplements 

the benefits they receive from these programs and may expand their ability to meet their nutritional 

needs (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012b; Briefel et al. 2003). Emergency food assistance participants who 

do not report participating in other USDA nutrition assistance programs may be the most heavily 

dependent on TEFAP-supported emergency food assistance. Furthermore, TEFAP participants that 

obtain food from multiple emergency food sources are more likely to face homelessness, have very 

low food security, and suffer greater material hardships (Briefel et al. 2003). 

 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

15 

REFERENCES 

Baertlein, Lisa. “U.S. Food Banks Raise Alarm as Drought Dents Government Supplies.” USA 

Today. 2012. Available at [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/21/us-usa-hunger-holidayidUSBRE8AK08Q20121121]. Accessed March 17, 2013. 

Bello, Marisol. “Food Banks Run Short as Federal Government Hands Out Less.” USA Today.

September 9, 2012. Available at [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-09-

09/food-back-shortage/57698834/1]. Accessed March 17, 2013. 

Briefel, Ronette, Jonathan Jacobson, Nancy Clusen, Teresa Zavitsky, Miki Satake, Brittany Dawson, 

and Rhoda Cohen. “The Emergency Food Assistance System—Findings from the Client 

Survey: Final Report.” E-FAN-03- 007. USDA, Economic Research Service, July 2003. 

Available at [http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/45224/PDF]. Accessed March 16, 2013. 

Carson, Fatima. “Promoting Client Choice: How Food Pantries Can Most Effectively Alleviate 

Hunger.” 2008. Available at [http://hungercenter.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/Promoting-Client-Choice-Carson.pdf]. Accessed March 15, 2013. 

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. “Statistical 

Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2011.” AP-058. USDA, 

Economic Research Service, September 2012a. 

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. “Household Food 

Security in the United States in 2011.” ERR-141. USDA, Economic Research Service, 

September 2012b. 

Feeding America. “The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).” n.d. Available at 

[http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/advocacy-public-policy/policycenter/federal-anti-hunger-programs-and-policies/the-emergency-food-assistanceprogram.aspx]. Accessed March 18, 2013. 

Fox, Mary Kay, William Hamilton, and Biing-Hwan Lin. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition 

Programs on Nutrition and Health: Volume 3, Literature Review. Food Assistance and 

Nutrition Research Report No. 19-3, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, October 2004. 

Geldard, Theresa and Ashley Bress. “Eligible Recipient Agencies (ERA) & The Emergency Food 

Assistance Program (TEFAP).” n.d. Available at [http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/ 

tefap/TEFAP_EligilbeRA_presentation.pdf]. Accessed March 18, 2013. 

Guenther, Patricia M., Jill Reedy, Susan M. Krebs-Smith, Bryce B. Reeve, and P. Peter Basiotis. 

Development and Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index-2005: Technical Report. s.l.: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, November 2007. 

Levedahl, J. William, Nicole Ballenger, and Courtney Harold. “Comparing the Emergency Food 

Assistance Program and the Food Stamp Program: Recipient Characteristics, Market Effects, 

and Benefit/Cost Ratios.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 689. USDA, Economic Research 

Service, Commodity Economics and Resources and Technology Divisions, 1994. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

16 

Mabli, James, Rhoda Cohen, Frank Potter, and Zhanyun Zhao. “Hunger in America 2010 National 

Report: Prepared for Feeding America.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, January 

2010. 

Ohls, James, Fazana Saleem-Ismail, Rhoda Cohen, and Brenda Cox. “The Emergency Food 

Assistance System—Findings from the Provider Survey. Volume II: Final Report.” USDA, 

Economic Research Service, 2002. 

Oregon Food Bank. “TEFAP: Appropriations FY 2013.” n.d. Available at 

[http://www.oregonfoodbank.org/Advocate/~/media/4EDF2E013BAB4ADDAC69B26383

982B3B.pdf]. Accessed April 5, 2013. 

Ponza, M., J.C. Ohls, B.E. Millen, et al. 1996. Serving Elders at Risk: The Older Americans Act 

Nutrition Programs, National Evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Program, 1993-1995, 

Volumes I, II, and III. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on 

Aging.

Reedy, Jill, Susan Krebs-Smith, and Claire Bosire. “Evaluating the Food Environment: Application 

of the Healthy Eating Index-2005.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 38, no. 5, 2010, pp. 

465–471. 

The Greater Boston Food Bank. “Advocate.” n.d. Available at [http://gbfb.org/how-tohelp/advocate.php]. Accessed April 5, 2013. 

USDA, FNS. “The Emergency Food Assistance Program, The Emergency Food Program Rural 

Infrastructure Grant.” Jan. 2, 2013. Available at [http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/ 

tefap/TEFAP_Rural_InfraGrant.htm]. Accessed March 18, 2013.

USDA, FNS. “The Emergency Food Assistance Program.” Feb. 11, 2013a. Available at 

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/tefap/]. Accessed March 18, 2013. 

USDA, FNS. “Disaster Assistance.” Feb. 14, 2012. Available at 

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/disasters/response/faq.htm]. Accessed March 18, 2013. 

USDA, Office of Budget and Program Analysis. “USDA Budget Congressional Justifications.” April 

12, 2013. Available at [http://www.obpa.usda.gov/explan_notes.html]. Accessed April 30, 

2013. 

Ver Ploeg, Michele, Vince Breneman, Tracey Farrigan, Karen Hamrick, David Hopkins, Phillip 

Kaufman, Biing-Hwan Lin, Mark Nord, Travis A. Smith, Ryan Williams, Kelly Kinnison, Carol 

Olander, Anita Singh, and Elizabeth Tuckermanty. “Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: 

Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences.” USDA, ERS, June 

2009. 

Zimmerman, Thea Palmer, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred 

Glantz, and Elaine Eaker. “Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its 

Food and Nutrition Programs.” Report FD-12-USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: USDA, FNS, 

Office of Research and Analysis, January 2012. 

 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

17 

ACRONYMS 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

DGAs Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

EFAS Emergency Food Assistance System 

EFO Emergency Feeding Organization 

ERA Eligible Recipient Agency 

FNS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

HEI Healthy Eating Index 

PCIMS Processed Commodities Inventory Management System 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

SoFAAS Calories from Solid Fats, Alcohol, and Added Sugars 

SoFAS Calories from Solid Fats and Added Sugars 

TEFAP The Emergency Food Assistance Program 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 

 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

18 

 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

19 

GLOSSARY 

Bonus foods USDA Foods purchased with funds authorized by Section 

32 of Public Law 74-320 that are not part of the TEFAP 

food appropriation funding. They are made available to 

States at no extra cost. These may be surplus domestic 

agricultural products that are purchased to support farm 

income and relieve downward pressures on prices. 

Community Action Agency This is a not-for profit social service organization that 

assists low-income households and individuals. 

Eligible Recipient Agency (ERA) To receive TEFAP funding or foods, ERAs must be 

nonprofit or public food distribution agencies that serve 

foods either as prepared meals or for household 

consumption. Examples include food banks and 

community action agencies. 

Emergency Feeding Organization 

(EFO) 

EFOs are a subset of ERAs that specifically serve food to 

the neediest members of a community. Food pantries, soup 

kitchens, and shelters are typical examples of EFOs that 

receive TEFAP funding or foods. 

Emergency Food Assistance System The collection of EFOs serving the nation’s most needy. 

Entitlement foods Each State’s allocated TEFAP foods funds are used toward 

the purchase of non-surplus USDA Foods, referred to as 

“entitlement” foods. 

Food bank This is a public or charitable institution that maintains an 

established operation involving the provision of food or 

edible commodities to food pantries, soup kitchens, hunger 

relief centers, or other food or feeding centers that provide 

meals or food to feed needy persons on a regular basis. 

Food pantry This is a public or private nonprofit organization that 

distributes food to low-income and unemployed 

households and individuals, including food from sources 

other than USDA, to relieve situations of emergency and 

distress. 

Food insecurity The USDA classifies food insecurity as “low food security” 

when a household reports a reduction in the quality, variety, 

or desirability of food diet combined with little or no 

indication of reduced food intake and as “very low food 

security” when a household reports multiple indications of 

disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake. 
TEFAP White Paper Mathematica Policy Research 

20 

Food security The USDA classifies food security as “high” when a 

household has no reported indications of food-access 

problems or limitations, or “marginal” when a household 

has one or two reported indications of food-access 

problems or limitations combined with little or no 

indication of changes in diets or food intake. 

Shelter This is a facility that provides temporary or transitional 

shelter for the homeless, victims of domestic violence, or 

other populations with transitional housing needs. Shelters 

offer room and board as well as the ancillary services. 

Soup kitchen This is a public or charitable institution that maintains an 

established feeding operation (typically prepared meals) to 

provide food to needy homeless persons on a regular basis. 

TEFAP participant An individual or household served by a food pantry, 

emergency kitchen, homeless shelter, or other type of EFO 

that may receive TEFAP foods. 
APPENDIX A 

ENTITLEMENT FOODS AVAILABLE THROUGH TEFAP IN FY 2013 

 
TEFAP Report Mathematica Policy Research 

A-2 
APPENDIX B 

STATE FUNDING ALLOCATION PROCEDURES AND ACCOUNTABILITY POLICIES 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

B-2 

 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

B-3 

State TEFAP food and administrative funds are allocated to each State based on a statutory 

formula that incorporates weighted poverty and unemployment indices. A State’s fair share 

proportion gives 60 percent weight to the average number of persons in households within the State 

living below the poverty level and 40 percent weight to the average number of unemployed persons 

during the prior year. 

The FNS memorandum on FY 2013 Funding for TEFAP includes a detailed list of the 

anticipated food and administrative funding amounts for each State. In Alaska, for example, there 

was an average of 26,570 persons unemployed from October 2011 to July 2012, accounting for 0.20 

percent of the national average of unemployed individuals during that time. Furthermore, there was 

an average of 73,905 persons living below the poverty level in Alaska in CY 2011, accounting for 

0.15 percent of the national average of unemployed individuals during that time. Thus, Alaska’s “fair 

share” of FY 2013 TEFAP food and administrative funds was calculated as 40 percent of 0.20 

percent plus 60 percent of 0.15 percent, which results in 0.17 percent. Consequently, Alaska will be 

awarded 0.17 percent of all TEFAP food and administrative funds made available to States in FY 

2013. 

To be eligible for TEFAP administrative funds, ERAs first must enter into an agreement with 

the State or another participating ERA. States ultimately are accountable and must exercise diligence 

to ensure that TEFAP food inventories are managed effectively, efficiently, and without waste as 

required by federal regulations. FNS policies and guidelines support States in meeting program 

eligibility standards. States must monitor TEFAP inventory levels and participating ERAs on a 

regular basis to promote program integrity. States are required to ensure that State agency inventory 

levels of foods for use in TEFAP do not exceed a six-month supply without approval from FNS. To 

achieve this goal, TEFAP State agencies must submit semiannual inventory reports. Additionally, 

these agencies are required to review at least 25 percent of all ERAs participating in TEFAP and 

maintain a list of all ERAs that have an agreement with the State or another ERA to participate in 

TEFAP. 
APPENDIX C 

NATIONAL DATA SOURCES WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND 

INDIVIDUALS THAT USE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE 

 
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research 

C-2 
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research 

C-3 

Three national data sources provide information on the characteristics of households and 

individuals that use emergency food assistance services from EFOs that provide TEFAP foods. 

1. The December 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) Food Security Supplement

provides national data on the characteristics of households that obtain emergency food 

assistance from food pantries and soup kitchens, their food security, and their 

participation in nutrition assistance programs (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2012a, 2012b). The 

CPS data may underestimate use of soup kitchens because homeless and tenuously 

housed individuals are excluded from the sample. 

2. A 2009 nationwide survey of Feeding America clients provides data on client 

demographic characteristics and household food security (Mabli et al. 2010). Data are 

also provided on Feeding America client households that participate in USDA nutrition 

assistance programs; however, no data are provided on households that do not 

participate in any other USDA nutrition assistance program. The client sample was 

drawn from clients served by food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters that received 

food from 181 of 204 Feeding America member food banks. Shelters include homeless 

shelters, shelters with substance abuse programs, and transitional shelters such as those 

for battered women.

3. A 2001 national survey of food pantry and soup kitchen clients provides national 

data on their characteristics, food security, and USDA nutrition assistance program 

participation (Briefel et al. 2003). The survey sampled food pantry and soup kitchen 

clients at providers who participated in the 2000 Emergency Food Assistance System 

Provider Survey (Ohls et al. 2002). Twelve percent of food pantry clients and 45 percent 

of soup kitchen clients also obtained meals from shelters. Even though it is the most 

recent comprehensive study of the emergency food assistance system using nationally 

representative samples, one limitation is that the data are more than a decade old. 
APPENDIX D 

DESCRIPTIONS OF THE HEALTHY EATING INDEX-2005 SCORES AND 

CONTRIBUTION TO USDA FOOD PATTERN RECOMMENDATIONS 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

D-2 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

D-3 

A. Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005) 

The HEI-2005 provides a composite measure of diet quality in relation to the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and the MyPyramid food guidance system (Table D.1) (USDA 2007). The 

HEI-2005 approach reflects that individuals should strive to meet food group and nutrient needs 

while maintaining energy balance, rather than meeting food group and nutrient recommendations 

simply by consuming large quantities of food (Guenther et al. 2007). The HEI-2005 consists of 12 

components, each reflecting a key aspect of dietary quality. Nine components are food based and 

assess intakes of USDA Food Patterns food groups and subgroups; two components assess dietary 

components commonly consumed in excess (saturated fat and sodium); and one component 

assesses intake of calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars (SoFAAS) (Guenther et al. 

2007). Scoring criteria, shown in Table D.1, assign higher scores for greater concentrations (per 

1,000 calories) of food-based components and lower scores for greater concentrations of sodium, 

saturated fat, and calories from SoFAAS because recommendations for the latter components 

emphasize reduced or moderate intakes. Maximum scores for each component range from 5 to 20, 

and the maximum total HEI-2005 score is 100. 

B. Contribution to USDA Food Pattern Recommendations 

The USDA Food Patterns identify average daily amounts of foods to eat, in nutrient-dense 

forms, from five food groups and their subgroups, as well as healthy amounts of oils and limits on 

calories from SoFAS. The Food Patterns are based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and 

are designed to meet nutrient needs without exceeding calorie requirements. The USDA Food 

Patterns provide food group recommendations for 12 different calorie levels, based on an 

individual’s age, gender, and activity level. 

Researchers estimated the amounts of USDA Food Pattern food groups in TEFAP USDA 

Foods and standardized the amounts to a per-2,000 calorie basis (Zimmerman et al. 2012). The 

standardization of food group amounts facilitated comparisons with USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations for a 2,000 calorie diet. For example, at the 2,000 calorie level, the daily 

recommended amount of fruit is 2 cup equivalents. TEFAP USDA Foods (entitlement and bonus 

foods) provided 0.9 cup equivalents per 2,000 calories, or 81 percent of the daily recommendation. 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

D-4 

Table D.1. Healthy Eating Index-2005 

 Healthy Eating Index-2005 

Component 

Maximum 

Score 

Standard for 

Maximum Score 

Standard for Minimum 

Score of Zero 

Total fruit 5 ≥ 0.8 cup per 1,000 kcal No fruit 

Whole fruit (not juice) 5 ≥ 0.4 cup per 1,000 kcal No whole fruit 

Total vegetables 5 ≥ 1.1 cup per 1,000 kcal No vegetables 

Dark green and orange vegetables 

and legumesa 5 ≥ 0.4 cup per 1,000 kcal 

No dark green or deep orange 

vegetables or legumes 

Total grains 5 ≥ 3.0 oz per 1,000 kcal No grains 

Whole grains 5 ≥ 1.5 oz per 1,000 kcal No whole grains 

Milkb 10 ≥ 1.3 cup per 1,000 kcal No milk/dairy 

Meat and beans 10 ≥ 2.5 oz per 1,000 kcal No meat or beans 

Oilsc 10 ≥ 12 gm per 1,000 kcal No oil 

Saturated fat 10d ≤ 7% of total energy ≥ 15% of total energy 

Sodium 10d ≤ 0.7 gm per 1,000 kcal ≥ 2.0 gm per 1,000 kcal 

Calories from SoFAAS 20 ≤ 20% of total energy ≥ 50% of total energy 

Maximum Score 100 

Source: Healthy Eating Index-2005, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 

CNPP Fact Sheet No. 1, December 2006. 

Note: With the exception of saturated fat and sodium, amounts between the minimum and maximum are 

scored proportionately. 

a

Legumes are counted as vegetables only after the standard for meat and beans is met. b

Includes all milk products, including fluid milks, yogurt, and cheese. 

c

Includes nonhydrogenated vegetable oils and oils in fish, nuts, and seeds. 

d

Saturated fat and sodium get a score of 8 for levels that reflect 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

recommendations: <10% of energy from saturated fat and 1.1 gm sodium per 1,000 kcal, respectively.