Abstract

The report reviews existing data sources and prior research on six programs operated by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture that provide food assistance to American Indians 

living on or near reservations. The purpose of the review is to help identify future research

needs and opportunities to exploit administrative data systems and recurring national

surveys. The programs covered are the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

(FDPIR), the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch Program, the

School Breakfast Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).

Research topics of continuing importance include the impacts of reservation food 

assistance on health and nutrition, the characteristics that make nutrition education 

effective on reservations, the dynamics of program participation, and the contribution of

tribal administration to program coordination.

United States 

Department 

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

Electronic Report from the Economic Research Service

January 2005

Contractor

and Cooperator

Report No. 4

Background Report on the

Use and Impact of Food

Assistance Programs on

Indian Reservations

By Kenneth Finegold, Nancy Pindus, Laura Wherry,

Sandi Nelson, Timothy Triplett, and Randy Capps,

The Urban Institute

ERS project representative: Victor Oliveira, 

victoro@ers.usda.gov, 202-694-5434

Food Assistance 

and Nutrition 

Research Program

This report was prepared The Urban Institute under a cooperative

assistance agreement with the Economic Research Service. The

views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those

of ERS or USDA.
Table of Contents 

Summary........................................................................................................................................iii 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Approaches Used ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Program Overview.......................................................................................................................... 5 

Food Stamp Program (FSP)...................................................................................................... 5

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) .................................................. 6 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)............... 6 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) ................................................................... 7 

Other USDA Programs............................................................................................................. 7

Current Issues.................................................................................................................................. 9 

Nutrition.................................................................................................................................... 9 

Participation ............................................................................................................................ 10 

Administration ........................................................................................................................ 11 

Cultural Concerns................................................................................................................... 12 

Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. 14 

Survey Data............................................................................................................................. 15 

Administrative Data ................................................................................................................ 19 

Continuing Research Questions.................................................................................................... 21 

What are the Impacts of Reservation Food Assistance?......................................................... 21 

What Kinds of Nutrition Programs are Most Effective on Indian Reservations?................... 22 

Who Participates in the FDPIR, Who Participates in Food Stamps, and Does It Make a 

Difference Which Program They Participate In?.............................................................. 23 

What is the WIC Participation Rate on Indian Reservations, and What Factors 

Affect WIC Participation? ................................................................................................ 24 

Would Tribes be Better Served by Increased Program Coordination?................................... 25 

What Steps Can Improve the Infrastructure for Research on the Use and Impact of 

Food Assistance Programs on Indian Reservations? ........................................................ 26

References..................................................................................................................................... 28 

Appendix A: National, State, and Tribal Surveys as Data Sources on the Use and 

Impact of Food Assistance Programs on Indian Reservations................................................ 37 

Appendix B: Special Surveys with Data on on the Use and Impact of Food Assistance 

Programs on Indian Reservations........................................................................................... 71 

Appendix C: Food Stamp Program/Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, 

“Participation in Food Programs - by Race”........................................................................... 72 

Appendix D: Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, “Commodity 

Acceptability Progress Report”............................................................................................... 75

Appendix E: Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, “Monthly Distribution 

of Donated Foods to Family Units” ........................................................................................ 88

ii
Summary 

Four food assistance programs operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

specifically designate American Indians and Alaska Natives as beneficiaries: the Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the 

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Two additional programs, the National School 

Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, are widely used but do not have special 

provisions for reservations. To inform USDA decisions on future efforts to collect data and 

support research, we summarize prior research and existing data sources on the use and impact of 

these programs on Indian reservations. 

We reviewed existing data sources, including both survey and administrative data; 

reviewed previous research studies, including studies pertaining to particular tribes or geographic 

regions; and discussed data and research on reservation food assistance with subject area experts, 

including federal food program administrators, tribal food program managers and service 

providers, and researchers. The paper identifies data sources as well as information gaps and 

provides suggestions for improving data sources and furthering research on this topic. 

We identified four clusters of current issues, related to nutrition, participation, program 

administration, and cultural content in the food assistance programs discussed above. There is 

widespread interest in understanding and improving the nutritional effects of reservation food 

assistance programs. This interest is a response to the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and other 

diet-related health conditions among American Indians. Little is known about patterns of 

participation and nonparticipation in reservation food programs. Discussions of program

administration revolve around the stringent requirements for tribal administration of the FSP, 

which have never been met, and funding levels for WIC, the FDPIR, and the CSFP, which are 

administered by Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) on many reservations. Cultural concerns 

involve the inclusion of specific traditional foods in commodity packages and the relationship of 

food assistance programs to tribal norms such as sharing of food and respect for elders. 

The most useful data sources on the use and impact of food assistance programs on 

Indian reservations provide information on population characteristics (for both participants and 

eligible nonparticipants), program participation, and health and nutrition outcomes. The paper 

reviews 26 surveys conducted at the national, state, or tribal level and the extent to which they 

provide the data discussed above. Many of these surveys include data on participation in the 

Food Stamps program and WIC; some also cover the school breakfast and lunch programs. Only 

the Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey (NHNS) measures FDPIR participation, and none of the 

surveys we reviewed provides data on the CSFP. The health and nutrition content of the surveys 

reflects the purposes for which data were collected. 

Most of the surveys make it possible to identify American Indians, but except for the 

NHNS and tribal surveillance surveys, which only cover reservation populations, public-use 

survey data are generally inadequate to identify the subset of American Indians who live on 

reservations. Several strategies, however, might be used to work around these limitations. 

iii
Particularly promising resources for analysis of the use and impact of food assistance 

programs on Indian reservations include the NHNS, the California Health Interview Survey 

(CHIS), the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), and the Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Survey Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K). Four surveillance systems—the 

Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System (PedNSS), the Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System

(PNSS), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the Youth Risk Behavior 

Surveillance System (YRBSS)—have relevant content but limited information on program

participation. Minor changes would increase the value of the Current Population Survey (CPS), 

the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and the Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) for analysis of the use and impact of food assistance on Indian reservations. 

Special surveys designed to measure program participation and related health and 

nutrition outcomes among Indians living on reservations provide additional sources of data on 

the use and impact of food assistance programs. The content and coverage of these surveys make 

them more relevant to the topic than multipurpose state and national surveys, but the special 

surveys are less likely to be conducted regularly, and their data is less likely to be archived for 

public use by researchers other than those involved in the original studies. Future efforts to 

collect and analyze survey data on the use and impact of food assistance programs on Indian 

reservations are likely to involve tribal authorities as well as individual American Indian 

respondents. 

Administrative data generated or collected by each of the food assistance programs for 

purposes such as case management or quality control can be valuable resources for research. 

Administrative data, however, can only be used to examine the characteristics of program 

participants; comparable information about eligible nonparticipants is not collected. 

Administrative data appear to be more useful for studying the FDPIR and WIC on Indian 

reservations than for studying the FSP as reservation food assistance. 

Continuing research questions concern the impacts of reservation food assistance, the 

characteristics that make nutrition education effective on reservations, participation in the FSP, 

FDPIR, and WIC, and the extent to which tribal administration can improve coordination, both 

among food assistance programs and with other low-income programs. The USDA could 

improve the capacity to address these questions by devoting more resources to archiving data 

from special surveys; supporting experiments with imputation of reservation status in survey 

data; working with other federal agencies to make the CPS, NHIS, and SIPP more useful for 

analysis of reservation populations; and regularly including at least one reservation food 

assistance program in multisite studies. Recent proposals for development and linkage of 

administrative data on food assistance programs, though not designed with reservation programs 

in mind, would increase information on the use and impact of food assistance on Indian 

reservations, particularly if the FDPIR is included in the initiatives. 

iv
Introduction 

National surveys on food program use and nutritional status provide limited information 

about American Indians and Alaska Natives, because of their relatively small numbers and 

dispersed population.1

 In this background paper, we summarize prior research and existing data 

sources on the use and impact of food assistance programs on Indian reservations. Our purpose 

in doing so is to inform decisions by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on 

future efforts to collect data and support research about these programs. The study focuses on six 

programs operated by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS): the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the Commodity 

Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the National School Lunch Program, and the School 

Breakfast Program. 

We reviewed existing data sources, including both survey and administrative data; 

reviewed previous research studies, including studies pertaining to particular tribes or geographic 

regions; and discussed data and research on reservation food assistance with subject area experts, 

including federal food program administrators, tribal food program managers and service 

providers, and researchers. The paper identifies data sources as well as information gaps and 

provides suggestions for improving data sources and furthering research on this topic. 

Four of the six federal food assistance programs on which we focus specifically designate 

American Indians and Alaska Natives as beneficiaries (USDA 1997). The FDPIR exists only on 

Indian reservations, in approved areas near reservations, and in approved service areas in 

Oklahoma for federally-recognized tribes that do not have reservation land. The FDPIR can be 

administered by either the state or an Indian Tribal Organization (ITO), which can be a tribe, a 

band within a tribe, or an intertribal organization. The FSP, WIC, and the CSFP are not restricted 

to reservations or to American Indians, but the statutes governing each of these programs provide 

for possible ITO administration. The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast 

Program are widely implemented on Indian reservations but have no provisions unique to 

reservations. 

Some of the current issues concerning these six programs affect all potential participants, 

but are especially critical for American Indians, who are more likely than other Americans to be 

poor, unemployed, food insecure, hungry, obese, and diabetic.2

 How can food assistance 

 

1

 For ease of reading, we use “American Indian” to refer to both American Indians and Alaska Natives, 

unless otherwise noted. Similarly, unless otherwise noted, we use “Indian reservation” to describe 

Alaskan tribal villages as well as nonreservation areas of Oklahoma where, for historic reasons, Indian 

residents can participate in federal programs on the same basis as Indians living on reservations in other 

states. 

2

 From 2001 to 2003, 20.0 percent of American Indians were poor, compared to the national poverty rate 

of 12.1 percent. The median income of American Indians was 79.8 percent of the national median over 

the same period (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Mills 2004). Data from the 2000 Census suggest that 12.4 

percent of American Indians were unemployed, compared with 5.8 percent of the general working-age 

1
programs improve nutritional quality while continuing to fight food insecurity and hunger? How 

can these programs encourage greater participation by working families while continuing to 

serve the elderly, disabled, and unemployed? How can food assistance programs be better 

integrated with one another and with other programs serving people with low incomes? 

Other issues are specific to food assistance programs on Indian reservations. Under what 

conditions, and on what terms, can tribal organizations administer these programs? What foods 

should be included in the monthly FDPIR packages? How can food assistance programs build 

upon native traditions regarding food and community responsibilities? 

National surveys such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP), the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD), and the National Survey 

of America’s Families (NSAF) provide data about eligibility for food assistance programs, 

participation in them, and the impacts on nutrition and health among the general population. 

National surveys, however, are problematic sources of data on the use and impact of the 

programs on reservations. On the 2000 Census, 1.5 percent of the U.S. indicated that they 

considered themselves American Indian or Alaska Native, either as their only race or in 

combination with other races (Ogunwole 2002). This share of the population is large enough to 

include over four million people, yet small enough that national surveys based on random

selection of respondents often have too few American Indians for reliable analysis. The 

dispersion of the American Indian general population, in combination with the clustering of 

tribal subgroups, creates additional sampling problems (Ericksen 1996). 

All the difficulties of studying the use and impact of food assistance programs (and other 

low-income programs) among American Indians overall are compounded when the population of 

interest is the 25 percent of American Indians who live on reservations, or the 51 percent who 

live on or near reservations.3

 Yet, these subgroups are poorer than American Indians living 

elsewhere (Cole 2002), and they are therefore less likely to be able to meet their nutritional needs 

without federal assistance. 

 

population (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). The 1996 age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes was 10.9 per 100 

persons of age twenty and older for American Indians and 3.9 per 100 persons for non-Hispanic whites 

(Indian Health Service 2000). Data from selected states, collected by the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to 

Community Health (REACH) 2010 project, suggest that in 2001-2002, 40.1 percent of American Indian 

men and 37.7 percent of American Indian women were obese (body-mass index of 30 kg/m2

 and higher). 

These rates exceeded those for black, Hispanic, or Asian men and women (Liao, Tucker, and Giles 2003). 

In 1995-1997, 22.2 percent of American Indian households were food insecure, and 8.6 percent were food 

insecure with hunger (Food Research and Action Council 2000); both rates were about double the rates 

for all U.S. households (Bickel, Carlson, and Nord, 1999). 

3

 Percentage of American Indians living on reservations calculated by authors from Census 2000 

Summary File 1, 100-Percent Data. Percentage of American Indians living on or near reservations 

calculated by authors from FY 2000 estimate of the Indian Health Service service population (Indian 

Health Service 1999) and bridged-race estimate of April 2000 American Indian or Alaska Native 

population (Ingram et al. 2003:21). 

2
Approaches Used 

In this background study of food assistance programs on Indian reservations, we review 

existing sources of data and previous studies and suggest future projects to provide the data 

needed to answer key questions about these programs. We used multiple approaches to identify

current issues, data sources, and earlier research. 

One approach was to consult with subject area experts. Together with our Technical 

Representatives from ERS, we met with officials from FNS, including top staff members from 

each of the four programs and researchers from the Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and

Evaluation. We conducted telephone interviews or corresponded by email with representatives of 

Indian organizations, tribal leaders who have worked with states to facilitate collaboration in 

administering federal food assistance programs, federal officials from agencies outside the 

USDA, and other researchers who had studied the programs. All of these consultations were 

organized around four broad questions: 

• What research have you found most useful for your work with food assistance programs on 

Indian reservations? 

• What data have you found most useful for your work with these programs?

• What do you think will be the most important issues related to these programs over the next 

few years? 

• What new research or data would you find most useful for discussions and decisions about 

these issues? 

We found the consultations particularly helpful in identifying current issues and helping us 

understand different perspectives on them. 

In addition to reviewing data sources recommended by our experts or used in studies we 

found relevant, we reviewed the sources discussed by Logan, Fox, and Lin (2002) in their report 

on data sources for the effects of food assistance programs on nutrition and health. We examined 

additional data sources available through DataFerrett, an on-line tool for data analysis and 

extraction of data developed by the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC). We also reviewed other data sources with which we were familiar from

earlier projects. The surveys we reviewed included two state surveys, the California Health 

Interview Survey (CHIS) and the Washington State Population Survey (WSPS), and the Navajo 

Health and Nutrition Survey, which is a unique resource for the study of food assistance 

programs on Indian reservations. We also reviewed the Food Stamp Quality Control data 

available from the FNS web site and investigated the availability and usefulness of

administrative data on the FDPIR, the CSFP, and WIC. 

To identify relevant studies, we used a snowball technique. We started with the 

bibliography compiled by Stauss, Nelson, and Mortensen (2000), the sources in two studies of 

FDPIR (Usher, Shanklin, and Wildfire 1990; Fox, Hamilton, and Lin 2004), and a study of 

Indian participation in WIC (Cole 2002). Those sources led us in turn to others. We also 

performed computerized searches. We used subject classifications to search for relevant articles 

using the on-line catalogs of the Library of Congress, the National Agricultural Library, and the 

National Library of Medicine. We used keywords to search for articles in Agricola, EbscoHost, 

3
EconLit, J-STOR, Lexis-Nexis, ProQuest, PubMed and the two Native Health Databases 

maintained by the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center 

with support from the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the National Library of Medicine. We

also reviewed relevant papers from the American Indian Studies program at the University of 

Arizona and the four other institutions in the ERS Small Grants Program.

4

In the next sections of the paper, we provide brief overviews of the four food assistance 

programs and discuss current issues related to their use and impact. After that, we review 

existing sources of data on the food assistance programs and reservation populations and discuss 

gaps in the data sources that are currently available. We then review previous research studies, 

both quantitative and qualitative. We conclude by identifying key questions that have not been 

adequately addressed, or have been addressed with research that may now be outdated, and by 

suggesting future efforts to collect the data needed to answer these questions. To be realistic 

about the challenges ahead, we identify likely sources of problems in the proposed data 

collection efforts. 

 

4

 The other institutions in the ERS Small Grants Program are the Southern Rural Development Center, 

Mississippi State University; the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin; the Joint 

Center for Poverty Research, University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy Studies; and the 

Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis. 

4
Program Overview 

Food Stamp Program (FSP) 

In FY 2002, an estimated monthly average of 303,000 American Indians (Rosso and 

Faux 2003) participated in the Food Stamp Program, which provides recipients with benefits that 

can be used in place of cash, for the purchase of food items only. Benefits were originally 

provided in paper coupon form, but all participants now receive and use benefits electronically, 

through transactions over point-of-sale devices installed at supermarket checkout counters. 

Basic eligibility standards and benefit levels for the Food Stamp Program are set 

nationally, but the states are responsible for program administration. The 1996 Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act (also known as the 2002 Farm Bill) increased the variation in Food Stamp 

policy among states. States have limited options to exempt able-bodied adults without 

dependents (ABAWDs) from the FSP time limits, which restrict unemployed ABAWDs to three 

months of benefits in a thirty-six-month period. States also decide whether to use various options 

or waivers to adapt the program to the needs of the working poor. In determining whether an 

applicant’s assets are above FSP limits, for example, the standard FSP rules count the value of 

automobiles above an exemption of $4,650. States can now choose to apply the vehicle rules of 

their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs instead. States that exclude 

the entire value of automobiles from their TANF asset limits can thus do the same for Food 

Stamps (USDA 2004c). 

Federal regulations (7 CFR 281) permit tribes to administer the FSP, but only upon 

findings by the USDA that state administration has failed, and that the ITO has the capacity to 

administer the program. No such findings have ever been issued. Some tribes, however, do play 

more limited roles in FSP administration. Minnesota’s TANF program, the Minnesota Family 

Independence Program (MFIP), includes a Food Stamps component. The Mille Lacs band of the 

Ojibwe has used its authority to run a tribal TANF program to operate a slightly modified 

version of MFIP, under which it administers Food Stamps for tribal MFIP participants. Under 

Wisconsin’s Food Stamp Program, known as FoodShare, county or tribal workers at local 

agencies assess eligibility and issue benefits. Eight Wisconsin tribal agencies (Bad River, Forest 

County Potawatomi, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Oneida, Red Cliff, Sokaogan 

Chippewa, and Stockbridge Munsee) participate in this capacity. 

Other tribes have worked with state and county social service agencies to facilitate 

eligibility determination and coordination with other food assistance programs. For example, the 

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe in Washington, which operates a tribal TANF program, has clients 

complete applications to the state Food Stamp Program at the reservation and faxes the 

information to the state. Interviews can be conducted via telephone and EBT cards are mailed to 

5
participants. Only those individuals who can’t wait for their EBT cards to be mailed need go the 

county social services office for card issuance. The tribe also works closely with an assigned 

liaison at the county office, sharing information on any changes in client activities that might 

affect eligibility status. 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) provides monthly food 

packages to low-income individuals and families living on reservations, and to American Indian 

households living in approved areas near reservations and in approved service areas in 

Oklahoma. The eligibility requirements, which are similar to those for the Food Stamp Program, 

include a net income limit of 100 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, adjusted by the 

appropriate standard deduction for each household size. FDPIR participants, however, are not 

subject to Food Stamp Employment and Training requirements or the time limit on receipt of 

assistance by unemployed able-bodied adults without dependent children. 

Households cannot participate in FDPIR and the Food Stamp Program at the same time. 

Usher, Shanklin, and Wildfire (1990) found that FDPIR households were more likely to be 

elderly than FSP households, while FSP households were more likely to be receiving benefits 

from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the predecessor to today’s TANF 

program. They concluded that the distance to either the FSP office or grocery stores where Food 

Stamps could be used was only a minor factor in the choice between the two programs. 

The FDPIR is administered by state agencies or by ITOs. In FY 2003, five states and 98 

ITOs administered the program on 243 reservations. Recent changes have improved the 

nutritional quality and variety of commodity packages (Fox, Hamilton, and Lin 2004). Despite 

these changes, average monthly participation has dropped to 108,000, a 26 percent decline from

the FY 1987 peak of 146,000, and 17 percent below the 130,000 average for FY 1999 (USDA 

2004d). 

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

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 

provides critical food supplements (usually in the form of vouchers for purchases of specific 

items in retail stores) and nutrition education to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum, nonbreastfeeding women; infants; and children. Infants and children under age 5, 

pregnant women, nonbreastfeeding mothers less than 6 months postpartum, and breastfeeding 

mothers less than 12 months postpartum are categorically eligible for benefits. Categoricallyeligible individuals must either be income eligible (live in a family with income at or below 185 

percent of the federal poverty guidelines), or adjunctively eligible (enrolled in TANF, Food 

Stamps, Medicaid, or another program for which the state of residence confers adjunctive 

eligibility). WIC eligibility also requires that individuals meet at least one condition of 

6
nutritional risk. WIC’s importance has been demonstrated through numerous studies showing 

that it contributes to improved birthweight, reductions in Medicaid costs after birth, and 

reductions in anemia among young children (National Research Council 2003). 

Federal regulations allow tribes or ITOs to administer WIC. The participating tribes and 

ITOs are considered State WIC Agencies, with the same authority over tribal jurisdictions that 

state governments have elsewhere. In FY 2003, tribes or ITOs administered thirty-three WIC 

programs with a combined enrollment of 54,544 (USDA 2004a). 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) 

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) provides packages of USDA 

commodity foods, rather than vouchers, to low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women, other 

new mothers up to one year postpartum, children up to age six, and senior citizens of at least 60 

years of age. To be eligible for the program, recipients must reside in a participating state or 

reservation. Elderly persons must have an income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty 

guidelines, while nonelderly women and children must meet income eligibility requirements 

established by the state. States may establish additional requirements. 

The CSFP and the WIC Program have some overlap in their eligible populations among 

women and children, but only the CSFP offers assistance to the elderly. Dual participation in the 

programs is prohibited. Over time, and as WIC funding has grown, this dual eligible population 

has increasingly opted to participate in the WIC program. Consequently, more than 87 percent of 

current CSFP participants are elderly (USDA 2004b). 

Unlike WIC, the National School Lunch Program, or the Food Stamp Program, the CSFP 

is not available in every state. The program is currently authorized to operate in 32 states and the 

District of Columbia. Two ITOs—the Oglala Sioux, in South Dakota, and the Red Lake Band of 

Chippewa Indians, in Minnesota—substitute for their states in administering CSFP programs on 

their reservations. In calendar year 2004, the Oglala Sioux CSFP caseload was 700 people, and 

the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians caseload was 113 (USDA 2004b). 

Other USDA Programs 

The National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult 

Care Food Program, the Special Milk Program, and the Summer Food Service Program do not 

specifically identify American Indians as participants but do serve Indians on reservations, as 

well as others who meet program eligibility criteria (USDA 1997). Several data sources include 

information on participation in the School Breakfast and National School Lunch Programs and 

some of the studies we reviewed (for example, Snyder et al. 1999 and Story et al. 2002) focus on 

these programs as they operate at reservation schools. The National Food Stamp Program Survey 

conducted by FNS in 1996-97 included questions on the Child and Adult Care Food Program, as 

well as the School Breakfast Program, the National School Lunch Program, Food Stamps, and 

WIC, but the survey’s small sample size suggests that few Indians living on reservations were 

interviewed.

7
The Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP), a nutritional program for the elderly, is 

now operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging. Title 

VI of the Older Americans Act authorizes ITO participation in the program. One difference from

the USDA programs is that Native Hawaiian organizations can qualify for ITO status and 

administer the NSIP. The NSIP program was administered by the USDA from 1978 to 2003; the 

program was operated under different names for most of that period. The USDA continues to 

provide commodities for use in the NSIP program. Evaluations of the Title VI program in its 

earlier form were published in 1983 (Lustig 1983) and 1996 (Ponza et al. 1996).5

 

5

 See also Jackson and Godfrey (1990). 

8
Current Issues 

We identified four clusters of issues, related to nutrition, participation, program

administration, and cultural content, in the food assistance programs discussed above. The issues 

were selected based on discussions with FNS personnel and others involved in the programs. 

Nutrition 

There is widespread interest in understanding and improving the nutritional effects of 

reservation food assistance programs. This interest is a response to the prevalence of obesity, 

diabetes, and other diet-related health conditions among American Indians. Although obesity is 

an increasingly important health problem for all groups, obesity rates for American Indians are 

more than double those for whites (Story, et al. 1999). Obesity, in turn, is a risk factor for 

diabetes, which is also more prevalent among American Indians than among other groups 

(Gohdes 1995).6

 Diabetes is especially prevalent among the Pima Indians and other 

Southwestern tribes, who may have a genetic disposition toward the disease that became more 

harmful with the shift from traditional foods to a typical American high-fat diet (Knowler, et al. 

1983; Neel 1999). Diabetes rates are lower than the U.S. average among Alaska Natives, whose 

consumption of salmon and seal oil may give them some protection, but the prevalence of 

diabetes among this group is increasing (Naylor, et al. 2003). 

For all of the food assistance programs, diet-related health problems raise questions about 

how much to spend on nutrition education and how to design effective, culturally appropriate 

nutrition education programs in which American Indians will be able and willing to participate. 

Shanklin, Usher, and Wildfire (1992) found that in 1989, eight of 30 FDPIR programs surveyed 

reported no spending on nutritional education; only two of the 30 programs had full-time

nutrition coordinators on staff.7

 

Tribal administrators repeatedly cite program literature received from the USDA as their 

main source of nutritional information. Administrators share the information they receive from

the USDA with their counterparts in the other food assistance programs. Nutrition information 

that is culturally appropriate appears to be especially attractive; one FDPIR and CSFP 

administrator found information on the nutritional content of local and traditional foods, with 

recipes for healthier versions, to be particularly useful among program participants. Two of the 

tribal WIC administrators mentioned the need for more “best practices” information, particularly 

 

6

 More precisely, American Indians have a high prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus 

(NIDDM), also known as Type 2 or adult-onset diabetes. Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (also known 

as Type 1 or juvenile diabetes) is less prevalent among American Indians than in the general population. 

The prevalence of gestational diabetes is high among some tribes but comparable to or lower than the 

general population among others (Brown and Brenton 1994; Gohdes 1995). 

7

 While only two ITOs had full-time nutritionists on staff, 19 of the 30 reported personnel expenditures 

related to nutrition education. Four of the eight with no direct nutrition education expenses reported 

coordination with WIC, IHS, or Cooperative Extension staff. Two of these four, however, did not report 

conducting any activities. 

9
for innovations in breastfeeding promotion and nutrition education. Both administrators inquired 

about innovative social marketing strategies specifically targeted at the American Indian 

population. 

The commodity programs (FDPIR and CSFP) and the School Lunch and Breakfast 

programs also face the challenge of providing healthier foods within budget constraints. 

Commodity packages and school meals with more fresh fruits and vegetables, less salt, and less 

sugar would make it easier for recipients to follow restricted diets and might reduce the future 

prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and other health problems. Tribal administrators of the 

commodity programs have noticed improvements in the content, quality, and variety of foods 

offered but say that the ingredients of the products could still be made healthier. Many tribes 

have better facilities for food storage than in the past, allowing them to offer more fresh foods. 

Both FDPIR and CSFP have convened work groups to evaluate the respective food packages; 

these work groups include local program administrators as well as health and nutrition experts. 

Participation 

Food assistance programs can only improve health and nutrition outcomes to the extent 

that individuals who are eligible for these programs participate in them. Participation is voluntary 

and may require eligible individuals to travel to distant government offices and complete 

extensive paperwork. Participation in Food Stamps has become an important issue due to the 

decline in estimated national participation rates in the mid- and late 1990s and the low 

participation rate among working families (Cunnyngham 2004b; Zedlewski 2004). 

Cole (2002) estimated that 65 percent of American Indian pregnant women, and 48 

percent of American Indian infants and children, were enrolled in WIC. These estimates suggest 

that participation rates among categorically eligible American Indians who also meet WIC’s 

income and nutritional risk criteria are high. Others familiar with tribal WIC programs also 

thought that a high proportion of eligible women and children participate. 

Reservation participation rates for the FDPIR and the FSP are harder to gauge. Both 

programs collect self-identified racial and ethnic information from participants, but estimates of 

the eligible population, which are also necessary to estimate participation rates, are difficult to 

construct. The most extensive study of the FDPIR (Usher, Shanklin, and Wildfire 1990) did not 

attempt to calculate a participation rate for the program, and the most recent FNS report on Food 

Stamps participation (Cunnyngham 2004a) does not present a separate estimate for American 

Indians. 

Research on the Northern Cheyenne of southeastern Montana, funded through the ERS 

Small Grants Program, suggests that patterns of food assistance use have been altered by welfare 

reform and related policy changes affecting eligibility and the duration of benefits (Davis et al. 

2000). In-depth interviews with participants identified obstacles to obtaining Food Stamps 

benefits, including difficulties with completing the paperwork needed for meeting new eligibility 

requirements and maintaining benefits, the lack of transportation and phones needed to keep 

appointments with program personnel, and child care needs. One administrator we interviewed 

suggested transportation to school was the main hurdle to expanding participation in the School 

10
Breakfast Program: students who must take the bus to school do not arrive with enough time 

before class to eat breakfast, and thus are rushed to class with empty stomachs. 

Administration 

Provisions for tribal administration of food assistance vary by program. The standards 

that must be met for ITOs to assume responsibility for Food Stamps are extremely restrictive. 

Under Section 11 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 USC 2020), the Secretary of Agriculture 

must find that the state is failing to properly administer the program, and that the ITO is capable 

of doing so, before transferring authority to the ITO. The USDA has never issued such findings. 

In 1979, FNS, without issuing the required findings, approved a demonstration waiver for the 

Navajo Nation to administer the program, but the Nation could not reach agreement with 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah on the terms of the demonstration project and the waiver was 

terminated in 1981 (U.S. General Accounting Office 1994). In 2001, the National Congress of 

American Indians (NCAI), citing tribal administration of the FDPIR and the need for better 

integration between tribal TANF programs and the Food Stamp Program, endorsed legislation to 

allow tribes to administer the Food Stamp Program or determine eligibility for it (National 

Congress of American Indians 2001). 

The standards for tribal administration of WIC, the FDPIR, and the CSFP are less 

stringent than those for the FSP. Cole (2002) notes that there was little change in the list of ITOs 

operating WIC programs between 1992 and 1998. Tribal administration of the FDPIR and CSFP 

appears fairly stable as well. Tribal program directors identified insufficient funding as the 

largest issue in program administration. They told us it is difficult for some programs or regions 

to get all the money they need when other programs do not spend all the money they are given. 

Unspent FDPIR funds, which averaged $300,000 per year in FY 1999-2003, must be returned to 

the Treasury and are lost to the program each year. 

FDPIR has seen a number of changes in program operations. The change to allow 

vendors to use commercial brand-name labels instead of generic USDA labels has been very 

popular among the tribes. Program participants perceived commodities with generic USDA 

labels to be inferior in quality to products they could buy in their grocery stores. Use of

commercial labels has also reduced the stigma associated with participation in the program, as 

USDA commodities now look like other store-bought foods. Another benefit is that the standard 

commercial packaging provides more nutrition information. 

In the Prime Vendor Pilot, the FDPIR, in partnership with the Department of Defense, 

contracted food orders, storage, and delivery to Reinhart Foods throughout FNS’s Midwest 

Region. Orders are placed via the internet, and deliveries are more reliable and can be made on a 

more frequent basis. Expected cost savings did not occur, but ITOs expressed more satisfaction 

with the program (Kamara 2004). FNS is conducting a similar pilot in its Southwest Region, 

designed to provide similar customer service at a reduced cost. 

An issue affecting all the food assistance programs is how they can be better integrated—

with each other, and with non-USDA programs such as TANF, IHS health programs, and the 

economic development programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The transportation problems of 

many Indians living on reservations make the idea of a single, tribally-administered site for all 

11
low-income programs particularly appealing. The NCAI Food Stamps resolution made the point 

that tribal TANF recipients have to go to different offices for TANF cash assistance and for Food 

Stamps. 

Some have raised questions about the level of coordination between the FDPIR and the 

FSP. Because one program is administered by tribes and the other is not, it is not possible for one 

worker on the reservation to counsel clients and facilitate enrollment for both programs. 

Administration of both programs by the tribe would facilitate nutrition education because FDPIR 

participants would have more contact with the FSP’s more extensive nutritional efforts. Close 

integration of the FSP and the FDPIR makes it easier for recipients to move between programs as 

their circumstances change. In many locations, the FSP offers a wider selection of foods, 

particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. But when a household’s income increases to the point 

that it is eligible for only a small Food Stamp benefit, it may be better served by participating in 

the FDPIR. Where seasonal or temporary work is common, as on some of the reservations where 

many residents are employed at casinos, education about the advantages and disadvantages of 

each program and the ability to easily switch with changing household income would improve 

access to adequate food assistance for participants. More frequent movement between the FDPIR 

and the FSP would, however, increase these programs’ administrative costs. 

A former WIC administrator working with Alaska Natives discussed the unique 

challenges of providing food assistance to that population. In many remote regions of Alaska, 

food supply is limited and it is difficult to import food, which would have to be flown in. In these 

settings, food insecurity takes on a different meaning than not having enough money to buy food 

each month. 

Cultural Concerns 

Particular regional foods are mainstays of the traditional diets of many American Indian 

tribes. Examples include bison, on the Plains; blue corn and culinary ash, in the Southwest; wild 

rice, in Minnesota; and salmon, in the Pacific Northwest. These foods are often invested with 

spiritual significance and healthier than modern replacements such as corn-fed beef and white 

flour (Jackson and Mead 1990; Kuhnlein, Calloway, and Harland 1979; Naylor, et al. 2003). 

Elders within Alaska Native subsistence communities have their own strict guidelines for 

preparing and storage of harvested game, but the game cannot be offered in the federal 

commodity programs without passing inspection by the USDA. 

Many tribal leaders have expressed their desire that the commodity packages provide

more traditional foods. The addition of culturally significant foods, they suggest, would 

demonstrate that the USDA is responsive to tribal needs and wants, and would also have a 

positive economic impact for the localities. In response, FDPIR has offered bison meat to 

program participants since Fiscal Year 2001. However, the FDPIR Food Package Work Group 

determined that some culturally preferred foods (for example, blue cornmeal) were much more 

expensive and provided no nutrition advantage over the product currently offered (in this case, 

yellow cornmeal). One WIC administrator lamented that cultural appropriateness was not an 

issue for her American Indian population because so many nontraditional foods have permeated 

the culture. “There is just too much fast food on the reservation,” she told us. 

12
Program administrators have to weigh tradition and nutrition against cost and shelf life 

and decide whether to include traditional foods in the FDPIR and CSFP commodity packages, 

and in the meals served by the school breakfast and lunch programs. The market-based Food 

Stamp Program, in contrast, leaves these choices to the recipient as consumer. 

An issue applicable to all of the food assistance programs is how the programs interact 

with tribal norms, such as the sharing of food (Calloway and Gibbs 1976; Hiwalker et al. 2002) 

and respect for elders (Jackson and Mead 1990). Slonim, Kolasa, and Bass (1981) reported that 

Cherokee participants shared WIC foods with other family members, helping to meet family 

needs, but therefore reducing the nutritional impact for the targeted groups—women, infants, and 

children. More positively, Alves (1993) observed that multigenerational, extended families were 

valuable networks for her Extension Service work with the Navajo Nation. Smith and Wiedman 

(2000), similarly, found that program endorsement by female elders was the key to connecting 

eligible mothers with WIC services in an Aleutian community. Dillinger, et al. (1999) identified 

potlucks and powwows as good opportunities for nutrition education. 

13
Data Sources 

An ideal data source for analysis of the use and impact of food assistance programs on 

Indian reservations would provide information on three types of variables: population 

characteristics, program participation, and health and nutrition outcomes. The three types of

variables can be envisioned as the three points of a triangle, with the triangle’s sides representing 

the relationships that link each type of variables to the other two types. 

The ideal data on population characteristics would provide information on both 

participants and eligible nonparticipants. It would include variables that are generally important 

for program eligibility and participation, such as age, gender, and income. It would also include 

the variables needed to define the population of interest, American Indians living on 

reservations. When data collection efforts permit the identification of more than one race, as 

under the racial and ethnic classification standards issued by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) in 1997, two different ways of counting American Indians and Alaska Natives 

are possible: a single-race count, including only those who indicated that as their only race, and 

an inclusive count that also includes those who identified themselves as belonging to one or 

more additional categories. A third way of counting, a primary-race count in which all 

respondents are assigned to one and only one racial category, is the most consistent with federal 

practice before 1997. 

“Living on reservations” is also more problematic than it might first appear to be. 

Reservations are the relevant geographic units in most states, but Alaska Natives live in tribal 

villages, not reservations, and Oklahoma has “Tribal Statistical Areas” in addition to its single 

reservation. Moreover, the one food assistance program defined with reference to reservations, 

the FDPIR, provides benefits to Indian households living in designated areas near reservations, 

as well as to households (Indian or not) living on reservations (Kamara 2004). IHS Service Units 

also include both reservations and nearby areas. Geographic Information System (GIS) data 

would be valuable for determining location relative to reservation lands. 

The ideal participation data would include information on receipt of benefits from the 

FDPIR, FSP, CSFP, WIC, National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, and the 

other food programs. For Food Stamps, the only one of these programs providing benefits that 

are delineated in dollars, information on benefit amounts would also be useful. More detailed 

information on other food assistance programs would include the contents and value of 

commodity packages and school or elderly meals. 

The ideal data on nutritional outcomes, finally, would include measures of food security, 

expenditures, and intake. The ideal data on health outcomes would include health status and 

information on anemia, dental problems, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and obesity, all of

which are related to diet. It would also include information on breastfeeding, which is associated 

with improved child health and encouraged by WIC, but less prevalent among American Indians 

than among other women (Long, et al. 1995; Wright, et al. 1997). 

14
Survey Data 

Appendix A provides summary information on 26 surveys conducted at the national, 

state, or tribal level and the extent to which they provide the data discussed above. Many of these 

surveys include data on participation in the Food Stamp Program and WIC; some also cover the 

school breakfast and lunch programs. Only the Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey (NHNS) 

measures FDPIR participation, and none of the surveys we reviewed provides data on the CSFP. 

The health and nutrition content of the surveys reflects the purposes for which data were 

collected. 

Most of the surveys make it possible to identify American Indians by at least one method 

of counting (single race, inclusive, and primary race). Except for the NHNS and tribal 

surveillance surveys, which only cover reservation populations, public-use survey data are 

generally inadequate to identify the subset of American Indians who live on reservations. Several 

strategies, however, might be used to work around these limitations. One would be to seek access 

to confidential or restricted location data that could be matched, through use of geocodes, against 

reservation boundaries. Another would be to treat IHS use or insurance coverage as a proxy for 

location on or near a reservation. A third approach would be to impute reservation status from

other data. Many American Indians, for example, live in states or counties with no reservations, 

so if the state and county data are available, they can be assigned zero probability of living on a 

reservation. Probabilities based on population totals and relevant demographic characteristics can 

then be assigned to other American Indian survey respondents. 

The following surveys are particularly promising resources for analysis of the use and 

impact of food assistance programs on Indian reservations: 

• The Navaho Health and Nutrition Survey (NHNS) provides data on participation in the 

FDPIR, FSP, WIC, and the school breakfast and lunch programs, as well as data on food 

expenditures and difficulties obtaining food. Several diet-related health conditions are 

measured through both respondent questionnaires and physical tests. Respondents are Navajo 

Indians living on or near the main Navajo reservation. The survey has now been conducted 

twice, in 1991-1992 and 2001-2002, making it possible to analyze changes over time

(Ballew, et al. 1997; Benally 2004; White, et al. 1997). One limitation is that findings about 

the Navajo people do not necessarily apply to Indians living on reservations in other parts of 

the U.S., or even to other Southwestern tribes. Also, income is measured less directly than on 

most other surveys. Another limitation is that the Navajo Nation, the IHS, and the CDC have 

all been involved in collection of the data, which may make the process of gaining access 

unusually complicated. 

• The California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) collects information on tribal affiliation 

and enrollment status. American Indians were oversampled in 2001, but were not 

oversampled in 2003. Variables cover participation in Food Stamps and WIC (Harrison, et al. 

2002), food security (using the six-item version of the scale developed by the Food Security 

Measurement Project), health status, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and body-mass 

index (BMI). It may be possible to distinguish reservation households using confidential data 

available through the Data Access Center of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 

which provides access to detailed geographic identifiers (strata, county, zip code, latitude, 

15
and longitude) and additional demographic information. The main limitation is that data is 

only for California, which has the largest American Indian population of any state, but may 

not be representative of all parts of the U.S. 

• The Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) includes information 

on FSP and WIC participation, food security, health status (as reported by the parent), 

breastfeeding, dental care, child’s height and weight, and mother’s weight before and after 

pregnancy. American Indian children are oversampled; information on tribal affiliation, 

enrollment, and reservation status is collected; and a variable for IHS coverage is available. 

Restricted use data can be geocoded and merged with reservation maps. The content and 

sample (children from 9 months through first grade) make the ECLS-B most valuable for 

analyses related to WIC. The longitudinal structure of the ECLS-B allows analyses of 

individual children over time but poses the danger that attrition may bias estimates and shrink 

sample sizes. 

• The Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), generally 

similar to the ECLS-B, provides information on children through their elementary school 

years. The ECLS-K has a larger overall sample size but does not oversample American 

Indian children. The content and sample make the ECLS-K most valuable for analyses 

related to the School Breakfast and National School Lunch Programs, although the data also 

cover FSP participation. The spring-kindergarten and spring-third grade data files also 

include the full 18-question version of the U.S. household food security scale and categorical 

measures of food insecurity and hunger. In addition to the household scale, the spring-third 

grade file has information on children’s food security and hunger; this is important because 

“in most households classified as food insecure with hunger, the children in the household 

were not hungry” (National Center for Education Statistics 2004). Information on program

participation and food security could be linked with data on BMI and health status to explore 

the impact of food assistance on obesity and health among children or their parents. As with 

the ECLS-B, attrition may create problems in analysis of the data.

Four surveillance systems maintained by the CDC are potentially useful for research on 

the health and nutrition impacts of food assistance programs on Indian reservations. Surveillance 

systems are data collection efforts aimed at monitoring key behavioral or risk factors over time. 

They are set up to have continual data collection and reports usually focus on tracking key 

indicators. A major limitation is that the surveillance systems provide little or no information on 

program participation. 

• The Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System (PedNSS) collects nutritional status data at 

the clinic level from low-income children 0 to 5 years old enrolled in federally-funded child 

health programs. Six tribal governments (Cheyenne River Sioux, Chickasaw Nation, Inter 

Tribal Council of Arizona, Navajo Nation, Rosebud Sioux, and Standing Rock Sioux) 

currently participate. While the information collected—WIC participation and a few key 

nutritional indicators—is limited, the overall number of records collected each year is

impressive. In some years as many as 9 million records were collected, providing data on 

over 100,000 American Indian children. As with the PNSS, however, participating clinics are 

not randomly selected, so the data is not suitable for providing national estimates. Access to 

data is controlled by the reservation, state, or territory that collected it. 

16
• The Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System (PNSS) monitors prevalence of nutritional 

problems among women at high risk for an adverse pregnancy outcome, including teenagers. 

The Chickasaw Nation (Oklahoma), the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and the Navajo 

Nation currently participate in PNSS data collection. In some years, more than 10,000 

records are available for American Indian women. Data is collected at the clinic level and 

covers WIC participation and a few key nutritional indicators. Data collection methods and 

respondent eligibility criteria differ among health clinics. Data is collected at different times 

during a women’s pregnancy and many women drop out of the study before completion, 

creating a missing data problem. Participating clinics are not randomly selected and many 

states and tribes are not represented, so the data is not suitable for providing national 

estimates. Access to data is controlled by the reservation, state, or territory that collected it. 

• The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the world’s largest telephone 

survey, tracks health risks. Information from the survey is used to improve the health of the 

American people. The data is collected annually, without oversampling; the number of 

American Indian respondents in any given year is usually about 1,200. Although the BRFSS 

is a national survey, data is actually collected at the state level and states can receive funding 

to do geographic oversamples. Some states have used this funding to oversample particular 

tribes or reservations (see Appendix A). Examples of research using the BRFSS data in 

combination with these Indian oversamples include Sugarman, et al. (1992) and Levin, et al. 

(2002). A recent CDC report (Denny, Holtzman, and Cobb 2003) provides a good summary 

of health behaviors of American Indians and Alaska Natives using BRFSS 1997 to 2000 

data. 

• The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) provides representative data on 

U.S. high school students. The biennial survey has a wealth of questions on nutrition but does 

not include questions on program participation. American Indian students are not 

oversampled, so the national sample usually includes about 150 American Indian students. 

The CDC, however, has provided technical assistance to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 

Navajo Nation to help them conduct the YRBSS. The Navajo Nation YRBSS data have been 

collected since 1997 but the data have not been made available for public use. 

Minor changes would make three federal surveys that are currently of limited value for 

analysis of reservation food assistance much more useful for assessing the use and impact of 

food assistance programs on Indian reservations: 

• The Current Population Survey (CPS) includes a monthly survey and topical supplements. 

The annual demographic supplement, conducted each March, provides detailed income data 

and data on Food Stamps and school lunch participation, self-reported health status, and IHS 

coverage. The Food Security Supplement, last conducted in December 2002, includes data on 

participation in WIC, school breakfast, and private food assistance, as well as in Food 

Stamps and school lunch. It also uses the full 18-item U.S. household food security scale. 

Under the rotation schedule, only one-quarter of the 56,000 households in the December 

2002 Food Security Supplement were included in the March 2003 demographic supplement, 

and attrition further reduced the overlap. Matching data from the Food Security and 

demographic supplements to identify the households responding to both, moreover, has 

proven difficult (Madrian and Lefgren 1999). USDA attempted to reschedule the Food 

17
Security Supplement to be closer to the March Demographic supplement but this was not 

possible given the Census Bureau’s priorities. Doing so, however, would create a data source 

of great value for analysis of reservation food assistance programs and many other topics 

related to federal food programs. 

• The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) includes data on FSP and WIC 

participation, IHS coverage, and a wide range of health conditions. Detailed income data 

allows rough estimation of program eligibility. The National Center for Health Statistics 

(NCHS), which administers the NHIS, has frequently collaborated with other federal 

agencies to add questions to the survey. Adding questions such as whether an American 

Indian respondent lives on or near a reservation and whether the respondent participates in 

the FDPIR would improve the value of the survey for analysis of reservation food assistance. 

The cost of adding these or related questions would be limited by the small proportion of 

NHIS respondents who would be asked them: only the 1-2 percent of respondents who 

identified themselves as American Indian would be asked about their reservation status, and 

only those who said they lived on or near a reservation would be asked about the FDPIR. 

• The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) includes cross-sectional and 

longitudinal data on FSP and WIC participation as part of its core content. Beginning with 

the 1996 panel, five questions from the Food Security Measurement Project have also been 

included in the Wave 8 Adult Well-Being Topical Module. Although the sample size for the 

overall American Indian population in Wave 1 of the 2001 SIPP panel was over 1,200, the 

sample size dropped to 980 by Wave 8. Because approximately one quarter of American 

Indians live on reservations, attrition may reduce sample sizes for the reservation population 

below the minimum levels needed for reliable analyses. The SIPP, moreover, was not 

designed to support state-level analyses, and so may not support reservation-level analyses. 

Despite these limitations, the benefits of longitudinal data when looking at the dynamics of 

participation and the changing characteristics of the American Indian population using food 

assistance programs make the SIPP a promising survey for this type of analysis. A 

compounding factor, however, is the inability to identify in the public-use data whether an 

American Indian is living on a reservation. Even the restricted-use data do not identify 

participants below the county level. As with the NHIS, the addition of survey questions to 

determine reservation status would greatly improve the utility of the survey for analysis of 

the use of food assistance programs on Indian reservations. The 2008 panel is the earliest that 

these questions could be added as the 2004 panel is currently in process. 

A number of recurring issues limit the usefulness of other surveys with relevant content. 

Surveys with small overall sample sizes, such as the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation 

Survey, are unlikely to have adequate numbers of Indians living on reservations for reliable 

analyses. Attrition and reductions in sample size due to budget constraints have been serious 

problems for the longitudinal Survey of Program Dynamics (Logan, Fox, and Lin 2002). Data 

from surveys that were only conducted once, or from discontinued series, cannot be used to 

study the impact of recent policy changes, and may already be outdated for cross-sectional 

analyses. 

18
Special surveys measuring program participation and related health and nutrition 

outcomes among Indians living on reservations provide additional sources of data on the use and 

impact of food assistance programs. The content and coverage of these surveys are designed for 

this purpose, which makes them more relevant to the topic than the multipurpose surveys 

discussed in this section. Compared to the multipurpose surveys, however, the special surveys 

are less likely to be conducted regularly, and their data is less likely to be archived for public use 

by researchers other than those involved in the original studies. Most of the pertinent special

surveys have been conducted under the auspices of the University of Arizona American Indian 

Studies program with funding from the ERS Small Grants Program (see Appendix B). 

Future efforts to collect and analyze survey data on the use and impact of food assistance 

programs on Indian reservations will necessarily involve tribal authorities as well as individual 

American Indian respondents. As Roubideaux (2002:1402) observes, 

Tribes are also taking more control over the research that is conducted in their 

communities and are establishing institutional review boards to ensure that the 

research benefits their tribes, addresses their own research priorities, and involves 

the community at all levels of the research—design, conduct, and interpretation of 

the results. It is no longer acceptable for researchers and public health workers to 

enter Indian communities without the approval and participation of the tribe, 

collect data, and leave. 

Outside researchers and national or state administrators should recognize that the new

decisionmaking processes are likely to take longer and may result in additional restrictions on 

survey content and data release. They should also recognize, however, that tribal participation 

can improve the cultural competency of data collection and therefore produce more accurate and 

meaningful data. For example, Teufel (1997) worked with members of four Southwestern tribal 

communities to adapt a standard food frequency questionnaire by modifying the list of possible 

foods, the categories into which foods were grouped, and the ways in which information about 

preparation methods and serving sizes was obtained. Of the surveys discussed, tribal authorities 

have participated most in the development of the Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey, the tribal

surveillance surveys, and the special surveys, so the instruments for these surveys may be more 

culturally appropriate than those developed for the national or state surveys. 

Administrative Data 

Each of the food assistance programs generates or collects detailed data for 

administrative purposes, such as case management or quality control. Though produced for other 

purposes, these administrative data can also be valuable resources for research. The limitations 

of other sources of data on American Indians living on reservations may make the value of 

administrative data that much greater when they are the population of interest. Administrative 

data, however, can only be used to examine the characteristics of program participants; 

comparable information about eligible nonparticipants is not collected. 

Appendix C contains the form that FNS uses to collect information on the self-identified 

race and ethnicity of FSP and FDPIR participants. The information is collected each July. A 

revised version of the form, allowing participants to select more than one race, is currently under 

19
review by the Office of Management and Budget. FNS administrative systems can generate 

reports showing the number of households participating in the FSP and FDPIR by race and 

ethnicity. For the FDPIR, the data can be broken down by reservation. These reports are 

designed for internal use but can be released to outside parties upon request. 

Appendix D contains the FDPIR Commodity Acceptability Progress (CAP) form. Under 

the FDPIR, CSFP, NSLP, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program, ITOs and their state 

counterparts collect data on the most acceptable and least acceptable commodities among 

participants, in addition to the most frequently requested additions to commodity packages and 

prepared meals. The data collection is not specific to American Indians, but may be especially 

valuable for programs operating on reservations, given the interest in more nutritious and 

culturally-significant foods. 

Appendix E contains the FDPIR form used to collect monthly data on the distribution of 

commodity foods. The data collected include the number of households certified, the number of 

households participating, and the total number of participants. These forms also collect 

information on the amounts of each commodity delivered from the central distribution point to 

the reservations, distributed to households, and returned. FNS uses these data to generate 

monthly participation reports by region, state, and reservation. 

FNS officials have expressed interest in updating the 1990 report by Usher, Shanklin, and 

Wildfire and collecting additional data on the characteristics of FDPIR households. The data 

desired by FNS include information on household size, composition, income, and poverty; age, 

gender, health, nutrition, employment, and school status of household members; access to and 

participation in other assistance programs; housing arrangements, including availability of food 

preparation and storage resources; and perceived food need. If collected for all FDPIR 

households, these data would provide a rich source of information on program participants. 

Every other April, WIC collects participant characteristics (PC) data on persons enrolled 

in the program. Content includes enrollment category, nutritional risks, and use of other food 

assistance programs. PC data from WIC programs operated by ITOs provide this information for 

Indians living on or near reservations. FNS produces a biennial report describing WIC 

participant and program characteristics using the PC data; data are reported at the reservation 

level. In May 2002, USDA issued an additional report describing the characteristics of Native 

American WIC participants on and off reservations, based on PC data from 1992 through 1998 

(Cole 2002). This was a special extraction report that FNS does not plan to update. 

Administrative data are not as useful for analysis of Food Stamps on Indian reservations 

as they are for analysis of WIC and the commodity programs. American Indians are identified in 

the FSP Quality Control (QC) data, but their reservation status is not (Cunnyngham and Ewell 

2003). Because there are no tribal Food Stamp Programs, sub-state data on participants and 

benefit amounts are aggregated by county, and not by reservation. Even if reservation status was 

available, the number of reservation residents in the QC sample would likely be small since 

many American Indians living on reservations choose to enroll in FDPIR over the FSP. 

20
Continuing Research Questions 

Research on the use and impact of food assistance programs on Indian reservations has 

involved both quantitative studies, using the data resources we have described, and qualitative 

studies, conducted by tribal members or by outside researchers able to orient themselves to tribal

norms such as the role of elders (Jackson and Mead 1990). We conclude the paper by identifying 

key questions for future research and summarizing the main insights from previous efforts to 

answer these questions.

What are the Impacts of Reservation Food Assistance? 

As late as the end of the 1960s, the health and nutritional problems experienced by 

American Indians living on reservations could be traced to lack of food. Children were 

frequently underweight and some were diagnosed with kwashiorkor and marasmus, malnutrition

syndromes stemming from inadequate protein and calorie intake (Van Duzen, Carter, and Zwagg 

1976; Calloway and Gibbs 1976). 

High rates of poverty, unemployment, food insecurity, and hunger have persisted on 

many reservations (U.S. General Accounting Office 1990; Miller 1994; Hiwalker et al. 2002). 

Yet by 1990, severe malnutrition was rare, and children were more likely to be overweight than 

underweight. In a transition that has also been observed in developing countries, American 

Indians experienced a new set of problems related to consumption of a modern American highfat diet and lack of physical exercise. Obesity and diabetes became more prevalent on the 

reservation than elsewhere in the U.S. (Welty 1991; Jackson 1993; Teufel 1996). 

Studies of reservation food assistance programs have found large numbers of participants 

for whom these programs are the main, or even the only, source of food. Miller (1994), for 

example, reported that the FDPIR was the main source of food for 51.5 percent of participating 

households, and the only source of food for 7.4 percent. A General Accounting Office study 

(U.S. General Accounting Office 1990) reached similar conclusions. More recently, Hiwalker et 

al. (2002) found that the major sources of food on the Northern Cheyenne reservation were 

wages (64 percent of respondents), the FDPIR (33 percent), Food Stamps (31 percent), and WIC 

(26 percent). Virtually all those interviewed said that when they could, they shared with 

neighbors, family, and friends in need of food. 

The extensive use of food assistance suggests the possible contributions of these 

programs to both the health and nutritional gains that have been made on Indian reservations and 

the new problems that have emerged. Reservation residents developed the term, “commod bod,” 

to describe the physique of American Indians who relied heavily on commodity packages that 

were high in fat and highly sweetened (Welty 1991; Dillinger, et al. 1999). With recent changes 

in the FDPIR commodity package (Fox, Hamilton, and Lin 2004), however, the effects of the 

program on health and nutritional outcomes may be better than in the past. Further research can 

provide a more current and more detailed understanding of use of the different food assistance 

programs and the effects of participation on food expenditures, diet, and health and nutritional 

outcomes. 

21
What Kinds of Nutrition Programs are Most Effective on Indian Reservations? 

The prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and related health problems on Indian reservations 

suggests that effective programs of nutrition education are needed. Research suggests that welldesigned, culturally appropriate nutrition programs can improve outcomes. Specific aspects 

include an understanding of specific food preferences as well as cultural traditions related to 

serving food and the importance of food as part of family and other celebrations. The diversity of 

tribal cultures supports the need for continuing small scale studies of individual tribes or regional 

studies. Diabetes education experiences with the Spokane tribe also suggested the importance of 

cultural considerations (Burke 2001). In some programs, such as the elderly feeding programs 

that are now part of NSIP, local programs do their own menu planning and emphasize cultural 

foods (Jackson and Godfrey 1990). 

Several intervention programs involved changes in both diet and physical activity. The 

interventions vary with respect to structure, intensity, and target population. A randomized 

clinical trial of lifestyle interventions to address diabetes risk factors in adult Pima Indians found 

that a less direct, less structured, more participatory intervention that focused on history and 

culture was more effective than a more structured intervention (Narayan, et al. 1998). A program

of increased physical activity and nutrition education, coordinated with the school breakfast and 

lunch programs, provided a stable environment for behavior change interventions that slowed 

early childhood weight gain among Pima children living in the Gila River Indian Community 

(Cook and Hurley 1998). Nutrition education, provided to pregnant adolescents by cooperative 

extension service paraprofessionals in cooperation with the Chickasaw and Choctaw WIC 

programs, was effective in improving dietary intake, maternal weight gain, and infant 

birthweight (Hermann, Williams, and Hunt 2001). 

Pathways, a school-based, randomized controlled trial for prevention of obesity in 

American Indian schoolchildren, was conducted in schools serving American Indian 

communities in Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota. Program components included 

classroom education promoting healthy eating and increased physical activity, changes in school 

lunch and school breakfast meals, physical education, and family involvement. The program did 

not result in a significant reduction in body fat, but did result in a reduction in the percentage of 

energy from fat and increased food and health related knowledge and behavior. The researchers 

concluded that a more intense or longer intervention may be needed (Caballero, et al. 2003). 

Access to either the FDPIR or stores that accept Food Stamps does not appear to be a 

problem generally, but access to healthy food may be more difficult due to the limited number of 

grocery stores on reservations and the limited selection in these stores. Studies of the Ojibwa and 

Tohono O’odham tribes, for example, reported limited availability of traditional foods that would 

support a healthy diet (Parrish 2002; Lopez, Reader, and Buseck 2002). Several nutritional 

initiatives have been designed to improve access to such foods. For example, the Ojibwa project 

(Parrish 2002) plans to produce a cookbook of traditional food and encourage local restaurants 

and feeding programs to incorporate traditional foods in their menus. The Apache Healthy Stores 

project, funded by USDA, works with grocery stores on Arizona’s White Mountain and San 

Carlos Reservations to promote healthy foods. Participating stores stock healthy food choices, 

use shelf labels to identify healthy foods, offer cooking demonstrations and taste tests, provide 

recipes, distribute fliers, and display posters. An underlying concept of this program is that the 

22
involvement of self-sustaining enterprises such as grocery stores on the reservation will provide 

long term benefits for the tribe.8

A number of nutrition education efforts involved coordination with the Cooperative 

Extension Service to develop materials or programs, including classes or videos featuring 

healthy recipes and food preparation tailored to traditional Native American recipes. 

Coordination of nutrition education with the IHS was reported as well. Other programs such as 

school and child care meal programs and elder programs can also offer and coordinate nutrition 

education. The USDA’s Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program, which included schools on the Zuni 

reservation in New Mexico, identified operational challenges, such as nonfood costs and 

planning time, which can be addressed to improve implementation of this program (Buzby, 

Guthrie, and Kantor 2003; Pareo & Booker 2003). 

Diet is an integral part of traditional medicine in Native American communities, and 

practitioners would benefit from awareness of the traditional medicine practices of particular

tribes, which sometimes conflict with diets prescribed by biomedical practitioners, resulting in 

noncompliance. For example, Jackson and Broussard (1987) report that discussions with 

Seminoles using Indian medicine revealed that they could not follow diets as prescribed by 

biomedicine practitioners because many fruits and vegetables are forbidden under traditional 

medicine. 

Who Participates in the FDPIR, Who Participates in Food Stamps, and Does It Make a 

Difference Which Program They Participate In? 

Unlike others with incomes below program eligibility limits, residents of Indian 

reservations and American Indians living near reservations may be able to choose whether to 

receive food assistance through the FDPIR or FSP. Usher, Shanklin, and Wildfire (1990) found 

that older American Indians were more likely to prefer the FDPIR, and that American Indians 

with incomes closer to program limits preferred the FDPIR because it offered a commodity 

package based on family size only, whereas Food Stamps benefits were reduced as income

increased. The same authors found that FSP participants were more likely than FDPIR 

participants to receive AFDC cash assistance. An FDPIR administrator suggested that 

participants preferred that program over the FSP because the FDPIR offered better delivery 

service; was perceived as healthier because commodities had to meet USDA guidelines; and was

not affected by high food prices on reservations, which reduce the purchasing power of Food 

Stamp benefits. 

FDPIR food packages were updated in FY 1998 and distribution continues to improve, 

making the program healthier and more consumer-friendly than it was (Fox, Hamilton, and Lin 

2004). Yet FDPIR participation has been dropping in recent years (USDA 2004d). Analysis of 

survey and administrative data could provide a better understanding of this decline and 

determine whether people eligible for either program are shifting from the FDPIR to the FSP, or 

going without food assistance from either program. 

 

8

 More information on the Apache Healthy Stores project is available on the project website, 

http://www.healthystores.org/AHS.html.

23
Apart from the factors affecting choice between the two programs, we do not really know 

whether one or the other produces better health and nutritional outcomes. Any differences 

between the programs could be due to differences in the value of benefits, in the foods obtained 

through each program, or in exposure to nutrition programs: FDPIR participants are eligible for 

Food Stamp Nutrition Education, but may have less access to it than FSP participants. Data 

sources such as the NHNS, for the Navajo Nation, and the CHIS, for California tribes, provide 

information on program participation and on health and nutrition outcomes, and so may allow 

researchers to address these questions. Qualitative studies could clarify the extent to which Food 

Stamp Nutrition Education efforts reach FDPIR participants.

What is the WIC Participation Rate on Indian Reservations, and What Factors Affect WIC

Participation? 

Between 1992 and 1998, American Indian enrollment in WIC increased at a slower rate 

(17 percent) than the overall WIC population, which grew 40 percent (Cole 2002). Nearly threequarters of American Indian WIC participants have incomes below federal poverty guidelines, 

making them the most disadvantaged racial or ethnic group in the WIC population (Food 

Research and Action Center 2000). What is unclear from previous research on American Indian 

participation in the WIC program is whether participation rates for eligible American Indians, on 

and off reservations, are significantly different from the rates for other groups. Further, do the 

participation rates vary among participant groups (pregnant and postpartum women, infants and 

children under age 5) or by region, reservation status, or presence of an ITO? These are key 

questions for understanding whether the benefits of the WIC program are permeating American 

Indian communities. 

To better understand WIC eligibility and participation among the general population, 

USDA recently contracted with the National Research Council to re-evaluate the methodology 

used to determine the number of persons eligible for WIC. The new methodology uses both CPS 

and SIPP data to estimate the size of the WIC eligible population. The most recent calculations 

using the new methodology are for 1998. These calculations suggest that about 86 percent of 

infants, between 40 and 50 percent of children, and about 70 percent of pregnant women who are 

eligible for WIC participated in WIC during 1998 (National Research Council 2003). 

Although the general perception is that WIC participation rates tend to be high, it is not 

clear from the literature on the WIC program in the American Indian population whether this is 

the case for American Indians on or off reservations. The NRC report did not estimate 

participation rates by any demographic characteristics. Although over a decade old and limited 

by a small sample, one study by Ikeda et al. (1993) did find that only seven of seventeen eligible 

American Indian women in California’s Yosemite-Mariposa region participated in WIC, a 

participation rate of only 41 percent. It is not appropriate to apply this finding to other American 

Indian populations, but it does suggest the need to examine eligibility and coverage rates for the 

broader American Indian population. 

USDA’s improved methodology for estimating WIC eligibles in the CPS and SIPP could 

be used to estimate participation rates for the overall American Indian population. However, in 

view of the limitations of these data sources for reservation populations, it would then be 

advisable to apply the new methodology to other data sources that offer better information on 

24
reservation status. The ECLS-B, for example, collects information on a cohort of children born 

in 2001, including data on tribal affiliation, enrollment, and reservation status as well as family 

income and participation in TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps and WIC. The ECLS-B could be 

used to estimate WIC categorical and income eligibility for infants, and to generate coverage 

rates based on reported participation in WIC. 

Would Tribes be Better Served by Increased Program Coordination?

Coordination, both among the various food assistance programs and with other programs

related to health, employment, education, and social services, is an issue that was raised by 

several of the experts we interviewed. The importance of program coordination is also discussed 

in the research literature. Increased coordination has been suggested as a way to improve 

participation in food assistance programs, improve access to services, and improve the 

availability and effectiveness of nutrition education. For example, if one caseworker is 

responsible for eligibility determination for both Food Stamps and FDPIR, participants might be 

more easily enrolled in the appropriate program and be able to switch between programs 

according to their needs. Access to services might also be improved when more services directed 

to low-income populations are housed in one place, especially if the services are available on the 

reservation rather than at a county social services office. 

Tribal operation of TANF increases opportunities for coordination between tribal TANF 

and other tribal programs. When a tribe takes over TANF, it opens one or more offices on the 

reservation. Often, the tribal TANF offices are in the same facilities as other tribal programs, 

improving access for tribal members and making it more feasible to have TANF and other 

program staff in close communication. In some tribes, several programs may even share staff, 

with one or more staff partially funded by TANF and tribal employment programs such as 

Native Employment Works (Hillabrant, Rhoades, and Pindus 2003). The experts we interviewed 

identified coordination with IHS programs as a way to reinforce and provide consistent messages 

about nutrition to participants in food assistance programs. 

Several of the experts we interviewed mentioned tribal operation of the Food Stamp 

Program in the context of improving coordination and access. Additional research is needed to 

assess the capacity of tribes to operate the Food Stamp Program and to determine whether, and in 

what ways, tribal operation of Food Stamps would improve food assistance and nutrition 

education for American Indians living on reservations. Congress, by statute, or the Secretary of 

Agriculture, by waiver, could authorize one or more demonstrations with tribal administration of 

the Food Stamp Programs, to be run on the model of current tribal FDPIR, CSFP, or WIC 

programs. The demonstration programs could be closely monitored, then carefully evaluated. 

There would then be sufficient evidence to support a decision either to terminate the 

experimental programs or to provide other tribes meeting appropriate criteria with the same

opportunity to run their own reservation-based Food Stamp Program. 

In the absence of such demonstrations, conclusions about the viability of tribal Food 

Stamp Programs and their effects on service delivery must be inferred. Evidence about tribal 

administration of the FDPIR (Usher, Shanklin, and Wildfire 1990; Fox, Hamilton, and Lin 

2004); WIC (Cole 2002); and the CSFP would be relevant, as would evidence about tribal 

25
administration of TANF (Hillabrant, Rhoades, and Pindus 2003), the Welfare-to-Work program

(Hillabrant, et al. 2001), and other low-income programs outside the USDA. 

More evidence could come from close study of ITOs with some involvement in FSP 

administration, including the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, which administers the Food Stamps 

component of Minnesota’s MFIP for participants in its tribal TANF program; the eight 

Wisconsin tribal agencies that determine FSP eligibility and issue benefits; and the Port Gamble 

S’Klallam Tribe in Washington, which coordinates its tribal TANF program with the state-run 

FSP. Both qualitative and quantitative techniques could be used to understand the operations of 

these programs, investigate their use, and determine whether any outcomes are different from

those on reservations where ITOs are not involved with the FSP. It would be important in doing 

so to delineate the boundaries of ITO, county, and state authority. Additional research could 

identify other ITOs with FSP roles. 

What Steps Can Improve the Infrastructure for Research on the Use and Impact of Food 

Assistance Programs on Indian Reservations? 

In the course of this background paper, we have suggested several steps that ERS could 

take to improve data on the programs we have discussed, without spending a disproportionate 

amount of its limited budget for food and nutrition research on the reservation population. ERS 

could devote more resources to archiving data from special surveys conducted under the 

University of Arizona American Indian Studies program with funding from the ERS Small 

Grants Program. It could support experimentation with imputations of reservation status, using 

variables such as IHS coverage, state and county of residence, urban/rural location, and tribal 

enrollment. It could work collaboratively with the Census Bureau and NCHS to make slight 

modifications to the CPS, NHIS, and SIPP that would enhance their value for the study of food 

assistance on Indian reservations. And it could establish a practice of including at least one 

reservation site in any multisite studies, following the precedents of the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot 

Program, which included schools on the Zuni reservation in New Mexico (Buzby, Guthrie, and 

Kantor 2003; Pareo and Booker 2003), and the study of twenty innovative WIC programs, which 

included information on the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, whose WIC program delivers 

services at the workplaces of women with jobs on the reservation (Gordon, Hartline-Grafton, and 

Nogales 2004). 

In addition, ERS and FNS could collaborate to add variables needed for research on 

reservation food assistance to the administrative data generated by the FDPIR, FSP, CSFP, WIC,

National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, and the other programs operating 

on reservations. Many of the administrative data initiatives discussed by Wittenburg et al. (2001) 

and Cole (2003), though not proposed with reservation food assistance programs in mind, would 

increase the capacity for quantitative analysis of these programs. Wittenburg et al. proposed ten 

potential data initiatives. ERS selected three for further development: linkage between the CPS 

and state FSP administrative data (Wittenburg and Alderson 2004); creation of a national 

research database combining WIC, Medicaid, and vital records data (Bell 2004); and a webbased data collection system for School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program

data (Bell, et al. 2004). Cole (2003) collected data from state directors of FSP, WIC, and child 

nutrition programs in 26 states on characteristics of their participant database, integration with 

other public assistance programs, and the feasibility of linking records across programs. She 

26
concluded that linking the USDA data systems was possible in a number of states, but that FSP 

and WIC state data systems vary significantly and would require probabilistic record linking 

methods to integrate nationally. Data initiatives such as these could provide valuable information 

on the dynamics of participation across programs for the American Indian population, 

particularly if the food assistance programs covered included the FDPIR. 

27
References 

Alves, Joyce L. 1993. “Reaching Native Americans.” Journal of Extension 31 (1). Spring. 

Ballew, Carol, Linda L. White, Karen F. Strauss, Lois J. Benson, James M. Mendlein, and Ali H. 

Mokdad. 1997. “Intake of Nutrients and Food Sources of Nutrients Among the Navajo: 

Findings from the Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey.” The Journal of Nutrition 127: 

2085S-93S. 

Bell, Loren. 2004. Linking WIC Program Data to Medicaid and Vital Records Data: Phase II 

Report, Data Development Initiatives for Research on Food Assistance and Nutrition

Programs -- Final Report. E-FAN-04-005-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. June. 

Bell, Loren, Anne Kenyon, Todd Heinrich, and Dea Zullo. 2004. Establishing a Web-Based 

Data Collection System for National School Lunch and National School Breakfast Program 

Data: Technical Report. E-FAN-04-005-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. June. 

Benally, Christine J. 2004. “Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey II.” Presentation to 

Commissioned Officers Association Conference, Anchorage, AK, May 20. 

http://64.78.13.152/sessionfiles/docs/TUE_SCI_Benally.pdf 

Bickel, Gary, Steven Carlson, and Mark Nord. 1999. Household Food Security in the United 

States 1995-1998 (Advance Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. July. 

Burke, Donna J. 2001. “Diabetes Education for the Native American Population.” Diabetes 

Educator 27 (2): 181-88. March/April. 

Buzby, Jean C., Joanne F. Guthrie, and Linda S. Kantor. 2003. Evaluation of the USDA Fruit 

and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress. E-FAN-03-006. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. April. 

Caballero, Benjamin, et al. 2003. “Pathways: A School-Based, Randomized Controlled Trial for 

the Prevention of Obesity in American Indian Schoolchildren.” American Journal of 

Clinical Nutrition 78: 1030-8. 

Calloway, D.H., and J.C. Gibbs. 1976. “Food Patterns and Food Assistance Programs in the 

Cocopah Indian Community.” Ecology of Food and Nutrition 5: 183-96. 

Cole, Nancy. 2002. The Characteristics of Native American WIC Participants, On and Off 

Reservations. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 

Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. May. 

28
———. 2003. Feasibility and Accuracy of Record Linkage to Estimate Multiple Program 

Participation: Volume 1, Record Linkage Issues and Results of the Survey of Food 

Assistance Information Systems. E-FAN-03-008-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. June. 

Cook, V.V., and J.S. Hurley. 1998. “Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes in Childhood.” Clinical 

Pediatrics 37: 123-30. February. 

Cunnyngham, Karen. 2004a. Technical Appendices to Trends in Food Stamp Program 

Participation Rates: 1999 to 2002. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. 

———. 2004b. Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates. Mathematica Policy 

Research. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 

Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. 

Cunnyngham, Karen, and Daisy Ewell. 2003. Technical Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2002 

FSPQC Database and QC Minimodel. Mathematica Policy Research. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and 

Evaluation. 

Daniels, Patricia N., and Cathie McCullough. 2004. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service. 2004b. 

Davis, Judith, Rita Hiwalker, Carol Ward, Erin Feinauer, and Cheryl Youngstrom. 2000. “Is the 

Food Stamps Program an Adequate Safety Net for American Indian Reservations?”

Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Davis, Judith, Rita Hiwalker, Carol Ward, and Eric Dahlin. 2002. “How Have Welfare Reforms 

Affected Access to Food Assistance Programs Among Two High Needs Groups at Northern 

Cheyenne: Young Families and Families Depending on Seasonal Employment?”

Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Robert J. Mills. 2004. Income, Poverty, and 

Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. August. 

Denny, Clark H., Deborah Holtzman, and Nathaniel Cobb. 2003. “Surveillance for Health 

Behaviors of American Indians and Alaska Natives: Findings from the Behavioral Risk 

Factor Surveillance System, 1997-2000.” Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report 52 

(Surveillance Summaries 07): 1-13. 1 August. 

Dillinger, Teresa L., Stephen C. Jett, Martha J. Macri, and Louis E. Grivetti. 1999. “Feast or 

Famine? Supplemental Food Programs and Their Impacts on Two American Indian 

Communities in California.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 50: 173-

87. 

29
Ericksen, Eugene P. 1996. “Problems in Sampling the Native American and Alaska Native 

Populations.” In Changing Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and 

Public Health, edited by Gary D. Sandefur, Ronald R. Rindfuss, and Barney Cohen (113-

29). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Food Research and Action Center. 2000. WIC in Native American Communities: Building a 

Healthier America. Washington, DC: Food Research and Action Center. 

Fox, Mary, K., William Hamilton, and Biing-Hwan Lin. 2004. Effects of Food Assistance and 

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

Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 19-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service. December. 

Gohdes, Dorothy. 1995. “Diabetes in North American Indians and Alaska Natives.” In Diabetes 

in America, 2nd Ed., edited by National Diabetes Data Group (683-702). Bethesda, MD: 

National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 

Diseases. 

Gordon, Anne, Heather Hartline-Grafton, and Renee Nogales. 2004. Innovative WIC Practices: 

Profiles of 20 Programs. E-FAN-04-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. June. 

Grant, Rachel C. 2000. “Federal Food Programs, Traditional Foods, and the Gros Ventre and 

Assiniboine Nations of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.” In Food Assistance and 

Nutrition Research Small Grants Program: Executive Summaries of 1998 Research Grants, 

edited by Ann Vandeman. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 10. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. December. 

Harrison, Gail, Charles A. DiSogra, George Manalo-LeClair, Jennifer Aguayo, and Wei Yen. 

2002. Over 2.2 Million Low-Income California Adults Are Food Insecure; 658,000 Suffer 

Hunger. Policy Brief. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. 

Henry, Leslie Ray. 2000. “Assessment of Food Concerns, Nutrition Knowledge, and Food 

Security of Oglala Lakota College Students on the Pine Ridge Reservation.” In Food 

Assistance and Nutrition Research Small Grants Program: Executive Summaries of 1998 

Research Grants, edited by Ann Vandeman. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report 

No. 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Hermann, Janice, Glenna Williams, and Donna Hunt. 2001. “Effect of Nutrition Education by 

Paraprofessionals on Dietary Intake, Maternal Weight Gain, and Infant Birth Weight in 

Pregnant Native American and Caucasian Adolescents.” Journal of Extension 39 (1). 

February. 

Hillabrant, Walter, Mack B. Rhoades, Jr., and Nancy Pindus. 2003. Operating TANF: 

Opportunities and Challenges for Tribes and Tribal Consortia. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc. August 26. 

30
Hillabrant, Walter, Mack B. Rhoades, Jr., Nancy Pindus, and John Trutko. 2001. The Evaluation 

of the Tribal Welfare-to-Work Grants Program: Initial Implementation Findings. Princeton, 

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. November. 

Hiwalker, Rita, Judith Davis, Carol Ward, Cheryl Youngstrom, Weibo Li, and Erin Feinauer. 

2002. “The Relationship of Food Assistance Program Participation to Nutritional and Health 

Status, Diabetes Risk and Food Security Among the Northern Cheyenne.” Unpublished 

report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Ikeda, Joanne, Sharon Dugan, Nancy Feldman, and Rita Mitchell. 1993. “Native Americans in 

California Surveyed on Diets, Nutrition Needs.” California Agriculture 47 (3): 8-10. MayJune. 

Indian Health Service. 1999. Trends in Indian Health, 1998-1999. Rockville, MD: Indian Health 

Service. 

Indian Health Service, National Diabetes Program. 2000. Interim Report to Congress: Special 

Diabetes Program for Indians. Albuquerque, NM: Indian Health Service. January. 

Ingram, Deborah D., Jennifer D. Parker, Nathaniel Schenker, James A. Weed, Brady Hamilton, 

Elizabeth Arias, and Jennifer H. Madans. 2003. United States Census 2000 Population with 

Bridged Race Categories. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics 2 

(135). 

Jackson, M. Yvonne. 1993. “Height, Weight, and Body Mass Index of American Indian 

Schoolchildren, 1990-1991.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 93 (10): 1136-40. 

October. 

Jackson, M. Yvonne, and Brenda A. Broussard. 1987. “Cultural Challenges in Nutrition 

Education Among American Indians.” Diabetes Educator 13 (1): 47-50. Winter. 

Jackson, M. Yvonne, and Floyd Godfrey. 1990. “Federal Nutrition Services for American Indian 

and Alaska Native Elders.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 60 (4): 568-71. 

Jackson, M. Yvonne, and Patricia Mead. 1990. “Nutrition Education for Indian Elders.” Journal 

of Nutrition Education 22 (6): 311-13. December.

Kamara, Sheku G. 2004. An Evaluation of the Prime Vendor Pilot of the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations. Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series, No. FDD-04-

PVP. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Knowler, William C., David J. Pettitt, Peter H. Bennett, and Robert C. Williams. 1983. “Diabetes 

Mellitus in the Pima Indians: Genetic and Evolutionary Considerations.” American Journal 

of Physical Anthropology 62: 107-14. 

Kuhnlein, Harriet V., Doris H. Calloway, and Barbara F. Harland. 1979. “Composition of 

Traditional Hopi Foods.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 75: 37-41. July. 

31
Levin, S., V.L. Lamar Welch, R.A. Bell, and M.L. Casper. 2002. “Geographic Variation in 

Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors Among American Indians and Comparisons with the 

Corresponding State Populations.” Ethnicity and Health 7 (1): 57-67. 

Liao, Y., P. Tucker, W.H. Giles, and. 2003. “Health Status of American Indians Compared with 

Other Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations --- Selected States, 2001-2002.” Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 52 (47): 1148-51. 28 November. 

Logan, Christopher, Mary Kay Fox, and Biing-Hwan Lin. 2002. Effects of Food Assistance and 

Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health: Volume II, Data Sources. Food Assistance and 

Nutrition Research Report No. 19-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. 

Long, Debbie G., Martha A. Funk-Archuleta, Constance J. Geiger, Alana J. Mozar, and Jan N. 

Heins. 1995. “Peer Counselor Program Increases Breastfeeding Rates in Utah Native 

American WIC Population.” Journal of Human Lactation 11: 279-84. 

Lopez, Daniel, Tristan Reader, and Paul Buseck. 2002. Community Attitudes Toward Traditional 

Tohono O’odham Foods. Sells, AZ: Tohono O’odham Community Action and Tohono 

O’odham Community College. 

Lustig, Judy. 1983. Evaluation of the Title VI Program: Grants to Indian Tribes for Nutritional 

and Supportive Services. Washington, DC: Native American Consultants, Inc. 

Madrian, Brigette C., and Lars John Lefgren. 1999. A Note On Longitudinally Matching Current 

Population Survey (CPS) Respondents. Technical Working Paper 247. Cambridge, MA: 

National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Miller, Paul. 1994. The Food Distribution Program on Montana’s Indian Reservation. Helena, 

MT: The Montana Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and The Montana 

Hunger Coalition. Spring. 

Narayan, K.M. Venkat, M. Hoskin, D. Kozak, A.M. Kriska, R.L. Hanson, D.J. Pettitt, D.K. Nagi, 

P.H. Bennett, and W.C. Knowler. 1998. “Randomized Clinical Trial of Lifestyle 

Interventions in Pima Indians: A Pilot Study.” Diabetic Medicine 15: 66-72. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Third Grade 

Public-Use Data File and Electronic Code Book. NCES 2004-001. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. 

National Congress of American Indians. 2001. Resolution #SPO-01-074: Support for Legislation 

Language Allowing Tribal Food Stamp Program. Spokane, WA: National Congress of 

American Indians. Nov. 25-30. 

National Research Council. 2003. Estimating Eligibility and Participation for the WIC Program. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

32
Naylor, J.L., C.D. Schraer, A.M. Mayer, A.P. Lanier, C.A. Treat, and N.J. Murphy. 2003. 

“Diabetes Among Alaska Natives: A Review.” International Journal of Circumpolar Health

62 (4): 363-87. December. 

Neel, James V. 1999. “The “Thrifty Genotype” in 1998.” Nutrition Reviews 57 (5 (pt. 2)): S2-S9. 

May. 

Ogunwole, Stella U. 2002. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2000.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. February. 

Pareo, Shirley L., and Mark C. Bauer. 2002. “Monitoring the Nutritional Status of Navajo 

Preschoolers.” In Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Small Grants Program: 

Executive Summaries of 2000 Research Grants, edited by Ann Vandeman. Food Assistance 

and Nutrition Research Report No. 20. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. April. 

Pareo, Shirley L., and John M. Booker. 2003. “Zuni Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program

Evaluation Results.” Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC. 

Parrish, Debra. 2002. “Nutrition Assessment and Education for Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa.” 

Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

Phillips, John. 2000. “Dietary Choices and Weight Control Practices Among Cheyenne River 

Lakota Households.” In Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Small Grants Program: 

Executive Summaries of 1998 Research Grants, edited by Ann Vandeman. Food Assistance 

and Nutrition Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service. 

Ponza, Michael, James C. Ohls, Barbara E. Millen, Audrey M. McCool, Karen E. Needels, Linda 

Rosenberg, Dexter Chu, Catherine Daly, and Paula A. Quatromoni. 1996. Serving Elders at 

Risk, The Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs: National Evaluation of the Elderly 

Nutrition Program, 1993-1995. Volume II: Title VI Evaluation Findings. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging. 

Rosso, Randy, and Melissa Faux. 2003. Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 

2002. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office 

of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. 

Roubideaux, Yvette. 2002. “Perspectives on American Indian Health.” American Journal of 

Public Health 92 (9): 1401-03. September. 

Shanklin, David S., Charles L. Usher, and Judith B. Wildfire. 1992. “Nutrition Education Needs 

and Services Among American Indians Participating in a Federal Food Assistance 

Program.” Journal of Nutrition Education 24 (6): 298-305. November/December. 

33
Slonim, Amy Baxter, Kathryn M. Kolasa, and Mary Ann Bass. 1981. “The Cultural 

Appropriateness of the WIC Program in Cherokee, North Carolina.” Journal of the 

American Dietetic Association 79: 164-68. August. 

Smith, Janell, and Dennis Wiedman. 2000. “Lessons in Basket Weaving and Traditional 

Wisdom: Partnering with Elders in Alaska Aleutian Communities Enhance Success of

WIC.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 92 (2): 25-27. 

Snyder, Patricia, Jean Anliker, Leslie Cunningham-Sabo, Lori Beth Dixon, Jackie Altaha, Arlene 

Chamberlain, Sally Davis, Marguerite Evans, Joanne Hurley, and Judith L. Weber. 1999. 

“The Pathways Study: A Model for Lowering the Fat in School Meals.” American Journal 

of Clinical Nutrition 69(suppl): 810S-5S. 

Stauss, Joseph H., Claudia E. Nelson, and Margaret A. Mortensen. 2000. Bibliography of 

Resources Related to Food Assistance and Health of North American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona, The American Indian Studies Program. 

October. 

Story, Mary, Marguerite Evans, Richard R. Fabsitz, Theresa E. Clay, Bonnie Holy Rock, and 

Brenda Broussard. 1999. “The Epidemic of Obesity in American Indian Communities and 

the Need for Childhood Obesity-Prevention Programs.” American Journal of Clinical 

Nutrition 69(suppl): 747S-54S. 

Story, Mary, Patricia Snyder, Jean Anliker, Leslie Cunningham-Sabo, Judith L. Weber, Kim

Ring, Harrison Platero, and Elaine J. Stone. 2002. “Nutrient Content of School Meals in 

Elementary Schools on American Indian Reservations.” Journal of The American Dietetic 

Association 102 (2): 253. 

Sugarman, Jonathan R., Charles W. Warren, Linda Oge, and Steven D. Helgerson. 1992. “Using 

the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System To Monitor Year 2000 Objectives Among 

American Indians.” Public Health Reports 107 (4): 449-54. July-August. 

Teufel, Nicolette I. 1996. “Nutrient-Health Associations in the Historic and Contemporary Diets 

of Southwest Native Americans.” Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 6: 

179-89. 

———. 1997. “Development of Culturally Competent Food-Frequency Questionnaires.” 

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 65(suppl): 1173S-78S. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Characteristics of American Indians and Alaska Natives by Tribe and 

Language: 2000. PHC-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. December. 

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2004a. “Annual State Level Data: 

Total WIC Program Participation, FY 1999-2003.” 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wifypart.htm. (Accessed November 3, 2004.) 

34
———. 2004b. Food and Nutrition Service, FNS National Data Bank. 

———. 2004c. Food Stamp Program: State Options Report, 4th edition. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. September. 

———. 2004d. “National Level Summary Table: Participation in the Indian Reservation and 

Commodity Supplemental Food Programs, and Meals Served in the Nutrition Services 

Incentive Program, FY 1969-2003.” http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fdpart.htm. (Accessed 

November 4, 2004.) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. 1997. 

Guide to USDA Programs for American Indian and Alaskan Natives. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1990. Food Assistance Programs: Recipient and Expert Views 

on Food Assistance at Four Indian Reservations. GAO/RCED-90-152. Washington, DC: 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 

———. 1994. Indian Food Stamp Proposal. GAO/RCED-95-57R. Washington, DC: U.S. 

General Accounting Office. November 30. 

Usher, Charles L., David S. Shanklin, and Judith B. Wildfire. 1990. Evaluation of the Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation. 

Van Duzen, Jean, James P. Carter, and Roger Vander Zwagg. 1976. “Protein and Calorie 

Malnutrition Among Preschool Navajo Indian Children, a Follow-up.” The American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition 29: 657-62. June. 

Welty, Thomas K. 1991. “Health Implications of Obesity in American Indians and Alaska 

Natives.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53: 1616S-20S. 

White, Linda L., Howard I. Goldberg, Tim J. Gilbert, Carol Ballew, James M. Mendlein, 

Douglas G. Peter, Christopher A. Percy, and Ali H. Mokdad. 1997. “Rationale, Design and 

Methodology for the Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey.” Journal of Nutrition 127: 2078S84S. 

Wittenburg, David, and Don Alderson. 2004. Linking the Current Population Survey to State 

Food Stamp Program Administrative Data: Phase II Report, Data Development Initiatives 

for Research on Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs - Final Report. E-FAN-04-005-1. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. June. 

Wittenburg, David, Loren Bell, Anne Kenyon, Michael Puma, Carol Hanchette, Stephen Bell, 

Chris Miller, and Vivian Gabor. 2001. Data Development Initiatives for Research on Food 

Assistance and Nutrition Programs, Phase I--Ten Potential Data Initiatives. E-FAN-01-010. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. December. 

35
Wright, Anne L., Audrey Naylor, Ruth Wester, Mark Bauer, and Emily Sutcliffe. 1997. “Using 

Cultural Knowledge in Health Promotion: Breastfeeding Among the Navajo.” Health 

Education and Behavior 24 (5): 625-39. October. 

Zedlewski, Sheila. 2004. “Recent Trends in Food Stamp Participation: Have New Policies Made 

a Difference?” Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief B-58. Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute.

36
Appendix A: National, State, and Tribal Surveys as Data Sources on the Use and Impact of 

Food Assistance Programs on Indian Reservations 

Americans’ Changing Lives (ACL)........................................................................................ 38 

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).......................................................... 39 

California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) ........................................................................... 41 

Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CES) Interview and Diary Surveys.................................... 42 

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey (CSFII/DHKS 1994-96, CSFII 1998)................................................................... 43 

Current Population Survey (CPS)........................................................................................... 44 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) ............................................. 46 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K)................................ 48 

Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study (EHSRE), 1996-2001 ............................... 49 

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)........................................................................... 50 

National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS 1996-97) ..................................................... 51 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)........................................... 52 

National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) ............................................................................. 53 

National Household Education Survey (NHES)..................................................................... 54 

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) ................................................................... 55 

National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF).................................................................... 57 

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)........................................................................... 58 

Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey (NHNS)........................................................................ 59 

Panel Study of Income Dynamics-Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS) ................ 60 

Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System (PedNSS)................................................................ 61 

Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System (PNSS)................................................................. 62 

Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) .................................................. 64 

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) ............................................................. 65 

Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD)...................................................................................... 67 

Washington State Population Survey (WSPS) ....................................................................... 68 

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) ............................................................ 69 

37
Americans’ Changing Lives (ACL) 

Responsible Organization: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: Conducted in 1986, 1989, and 1994. 

Coverage: Longitudinal study of adults age 25 and 

older, excludes residents of Alaska and 

Hawaii and individuals residing in group 

quarters or institutions. Oversampled for 

blacks and persons 60 years and older. 

Original 1986 sample had 3,617 respondents. 

By 1994, the number responding was 2,562 

and included 164 proxy respondents not part 

of the original sample. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian,” primary-race, also 

inclusive. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Region of residence. Primary area, state, 

county, SMSA, rural/urban on confidential 

data. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Family income 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP. 

Food Expenditures: Total spent on food. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Satisfaction with health and health status, 

respondent-reported. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Diabetes or high blood sugar, or taken 

medicine. 

Heart Disease: Heart attack or heart trouble over last 12 

months. 

Hypertension: Hypertension over last 12 months. 

Obesity: Height, weight, BMI, and overweight. 

38
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: Annually; began in 1984. Data is available 

the year after it is collected. 

Coverage: This is a telephone survey that each state is 

responsible for collecting and in some years 

certain states did not conduct the survey. The 

sample design is a random-digit dial (RDD) 

statewide sample and oversamples of certain 

populations within states occur periodically. 

The national sample usually has between 

1,000 and 1,500 American Indian and Alaska 

Native respondents in a given year. In 

addition, some community surveys have 

been conducted with select tribes and, in

collaboration with the CDC, use survey items 

found in the BRFFS. Tribal community 

surveys: Blackfeet Reservation (1987); Great 

Falls: Chippewa-Cree, Little Shell Blackfeet 

(1987); Fort Peck Reservation (1989); 

Catawba Diabetes Health Survey (1998); 

Lumbee Diabetes Health Survey (1998-99); 

and the Inter-Tribal Heart Project (1992-94). 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian/Alaska Native,” starting in 

2001, data collection was changed to allow 

multiple selection of race categories with a 

follow-up question on primary race. Prior to 

2001, race asked as a single race question. . 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not Available. 

Location Information: State – County code is suppressed on public 

use files – but data is available for Metro 

statistical areas with more than 500 

completed interviews. 

Indian Health Service Not available. 

Income Data: Household income (8 categories). 

Food Assistance Programs: Not Available. 

Food Availability/Spending: Not Available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not Available.

Health Status: Perceived health status, number of healthy

days past month (asked separately for 

physical versus mental health). 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Last time seen dentist, number of permanent 

teeth removed, last cleaning. 

39
Diabetes: Optional module (chosen on a state by state 

basis and not asked every year) asks a series 

of questions about diabetes and treatment. 

Heart Disease: Optional module (chosen on a state by state 

basis and not asked every year)asks a series 

of questions about behavior associated with 

preventing heart disease. 

Hypertension: Optional module (chosen on a state by state 

basis and not asked every year)asks a series 

of questions about hypertension and high

blood pressure and associated treatment.

Obesity: Not available.

40
California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) 

Responsible Organization: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 

California Department of Health Services, 

and the Public Health Institute. 

Frequency: Biennially, most recent data for public use 

from 2001. 

Coverage: 55,000 households in 2001; oversampled 

American Indians and Asian American 

subgroups. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian/Alaskan Native,” primaryrace, single-race, inclusive variable, also 

“Non-Latino American Indian/Alaskan 

Native.” 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Able to identify enrolled members of a 

federally or state recognized American 

Indian tribe. May also identify individuals 

with California Tribal heritage. Other tribal 

information collected in survey is not 

available for public use but may be available 

through the Data Access Center, which 

provides access to confidential files. 

Location Information: Urban/rural by several definitions and areas 

of analysis, region of residence, county or

county group, and Los Angeles County

Service Planning Areas (SPA). Detailed 

geographic identifiers (strata, county, zip

code, latitude, and longitude) are available 

through the Data Access Center. 

Indian Health Service: Insurance coverage by Indian Health Service. 

Income and Poverty Data: Annual household income and ratio of 

income to poverty level. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP and WIC. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Food security. 

Health Status: Respondent-reported health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Dental insurance, last dentist visit and 

reason, fluoride use, use of free community 

or public dental program, use of toothpaste, 

child sleeps with object in mouth and type, 

type of fluid/milk in bottle when child sleeps. 

Diabetes: Diagnosis and treatment of diabetes. 

Heart Disease: Diagnosis and medication for heart disease. 

Hypertension: Diagnosis and medication for high blood

pressure. 

Obesity: BMI.

41
Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CES) Interview and Diary Surveys 

Responsible Organization: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor. 

Frequency: Four times a year. 

Coverage: Nationally-representative sample of the noninstitutionalized population; covers 

approximately 7,500 households (5,000 prior 

to 1999). 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo” 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Urban/rural, region, state of residence, 

population size, MSA. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Includes wide range of income data and a 

variable indicating relation of income to the 

poverty threshold. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP. 

Food Expenditures: Expenditure information for food and 

beverages in house and away from home. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

42
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the Diet and Health Knowledge 

Survey (CSFII/DHKS 1994-96, CSFII 1998) 

Responsible Organization: Agricultural Research Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Frequency: CSFII has been conducted periodically since 

1985. It was conducted in 1994-96 in

conjunction with the first DHKS. A 

supplemental sample of 5,765 children age 9 

and younger was surveyed in 1998. In 2001, 

a decision was made to discontinue the 

survey. 

Coverage: Over the period 1994-96, the CSFII sampled 

19,830 persons and oversampled the lowincome population. DHKS had 5,765 

respondents. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian,” primary-race 

(respondent unable to select more than one 

race category). 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Region of residence, MSA. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Last year’s income before taxes, income by

source, ratio of income to poverty.

Food Assistance Programs: WIC, FSP, NSLP, and SBP. 

Food Expenditures: Expenditures on food in home and away

from home.

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Sufficiency of food in house and explanation.

Health Status: Self-assessed health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Lactation status; breastfeeding status of 

children age 3 and younger. 

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Self-assessed height and weight, selfassessment of weigh status (overweight), 

BMI, dieting status. 

43
Current Population Survey (CPS) 

Responsible Organization: Conducted by the Bureau of the Census for 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

Frequency: Monthly with an annual demographic 

supplement (every March) – 2004 current 

available. 

Food supplement (December 2002, 

previously April 1995, September 1996, 

April 1997, August 1998, April 1999, 

September 2000, April 2001, and December 

2001). 

Coverage: Nationally representative household survey

of civilian noninstitutionalized population. 

Monthly sample is about 50,000 households. 

There are 8 monthly panels. Each panel is 

interviewed 4 months, gets 8 months rest, 

then interviewed again 4 months. Each

month one eighth of sample is new. 

Households in same panel can be linked 

across months. 

March supplement has an additional 

Hispanic sample. In 2001, additional sample 

was added to improve state-level estimates of 

children’s SCHIP coverage. There were 

about 98,000 households in 2004. 

December supplement has about 56,000

households in 2002. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian,” single race categories. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: States are identified. Within “confidentiality

restrictions” (i.e., sample size), indicators are 

available for states, certain metropolitan 

areas, certain counties, certain central cities, 

the balance of metropolitan areas, and 

metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas. 

Indian Health Service Health insurance coverage, including Indian 

Health Service (demographic supplement). 

Income and Poverty Data: Earned income, sources of income, and ratio 

of income to poverty. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP, NSLP, WIC, SBP, CACFP, elderly 

nutrition (food supplement); FSP, NSLP, 

WIC (demographic supplement; provides 

less data than food supplement on programs

covered in both). 

44
Food Availability/Spending: Food spending patterns, total food spending, 

and minimum food spending needed (food 

supplement). 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: USDA 18-item food sufficiency, food 

insecurity and hunger scale (food 

supplement).

Health Status: Self-reported health status; health problem or 

disability which prevents working 

(demographic supplement). 

Anemia: Not available.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

45
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) 

Responsible Organization: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Frequency: Information is collected when the sample 

children are 9 months, 2 years, 4 years, and 

in kindergarten and first grade. Public use

data is not yet available for the 9 month 

interview. 

Coverage: Nationally-representative sample of 10,600 

children born in 2001. Oversampled Asian 

and Pacific Islander children, American 

Indian children, Chinese children, twins, and 

low/very low birth weight children. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian or Alaska Native 

(specify)” is a possible response on the 

questionnaire. Respondent is able to select 

more than one race. Race variables of 

individuals include a non-specific American 

Indian category. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups Tribal affiliation will be made available on 

the 2-year data file. Data on enrollment 

status have also been collected as part of the 

2-year file but as of November 2004 no

decision on the availability of these data has 

been made. 

Location Information: Region, urbanicity, state of interview, state 

of birth, county, and county population size 

are available on the restricted-use 9-month 

file. Data on reservation residence has been 

collected as part of the 2-year file, but as of 

November 2004 no decision on the 

availability of these data has been made.

Indian Health Service: Able to identify coverage through IHS. 

Income and Poverty Data: Household income in last year. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP, WIC. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger Food security. 

Health Status: Child’s overall health status (respondentreported) at birth, prenatally, and at regular 

intervals during early childhood;

respondent’s overall health. 

Anemia: Not available.

Prenatal care/Breastfed: Whether breastfed and length of time 

breastfeeding, early feeding, and feeding 

practices. 

Dental: Dental care. 

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

46
Obesity Child’s weight and length; parent’s weight 

and height, as well as weight control before 

and after pregnancy.

47
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) 

Responsible Organization: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Frequency: The sample was followed from kindergarten 

to fifth grade, 1998-2004. Full-sample data 

collection occurred in the fall and spring of 

kindergarten, and the spring of the first, 

third, and fifth grades. Information on a 30 

percent subsample was taken in the fall of 

first grade. Data from the third grade 

interview is the most recently released data 

file for public use (Spring 2001-02). 

Coverage: 22,666 kindergartners in the base sample, 

oversampled for Asian and Pacific Islanders. 

New students entered the sample in the 

spring of first grade. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian or Alaska Native,” value 

of a composite race variable, and “American 

Indian,” a dichotomous variable. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Census region and urban/rural. Other 

location information suppressed for reasons 

of confidentiality.

Indian Health Service Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total household income, general poverty 

indicator. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP, NSLP, and SBP. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Food security; food security raw score and 

scale score.

Health Status: Scale of child’s health (parent-reported) and 

respondent-reported health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Child height, weight, and BMI. 

48
Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Study (EHSRE), 1996-2001 

Responsible Organization: Administration for Children and Families, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: One-time study.

Coverage: Applicants, with a child up to 12 months old, 

to 17 selected Early Head Start programs

during the enrollment period of July 1996 – 

Sept. 1998. 1,513 families were randomly 

assigned to the program group and 1,488 

families to the control group. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: Included in the “Other” race category in the 

public-use data file. American Indian and 

Alaska Native children may be identified on 

the restricted-use data file but the sample size 

is small. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Location information on public-use file is 

limited but more contextual information is 

available on the restricted-use file. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: General poverty indicator. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP and WIC. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Inadequate supply of food.

Health Status: Overall health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Dental visits.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Child’s birth weight relative to 2500 grams. 

49
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 

Responsible Organization: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: Annual survey that started in 1996. 

Coverage: Representative of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population, with 

oversampling of blacks and Hispanics; 

39,165 respondents participated in the 2002 

round of the household component of the 

survey. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian/Alaska Native- no other 

race reported,” respondent able to select 

multiple race categories but no primary-race 

or inclusive variable available for American 

Indian and Alaska Native. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Census region and MSA status. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total income, income as percent of poverty 

(not yet available for 2002). 

Food Assistance Programs: Not available. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Perceived health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Frequency of dental visits, dental insurance. 

Diabetes: Diabetes diagnosis.

Heart Disease: Heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, 

or other heart disease diagnosis. 

Hypertension: High blood pressure, last checked blood 

pressure. 

Obesity: Not available.

50
National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS 1996-97) 

Responsible Organization: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. 

Frequency: One-time survey.

Coverage: Nationally-representative sample of Food 

Stamp Program participants and potential 

participants; covers information for 3,473 

households. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian or Alaska Native,” 

primary-race (respondent not given option to 

choose multiple race categories). 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Zip code and urban/rural. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Income, earned and unearned, sources of 

income, general poverty indicator, and ratio 

of poverty to income. 

Food Assistance Programs: WIC, FSP, NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and 

Nutrition Program for the Elderly. 

Food Expenditures: Expenditures on food in home and away

from home.

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Food security index, severity of hunger, 

reasons for food insufficiency, and reduced 

intake of food.

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

51
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: Continuous, annual survey; public use files 

released every two years. 

Coverage: 11,039 persons in 2001-2002; oversampled 

low-income persons, persons 12-19 years of 

age, persons 60+ years of age, African 

Americans, and Mexican Americans. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “Other Race – Including Multi-Racial” 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Not available. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Annual household and CPS income

available, as well as ratio of income to 

poverty level.

Food Assistance Programs: FSLP, SBP. The 2001-2002 survey included 

FSP and WIC questions but these data are 

not yet available. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Food security information has not yet been 

released for 2001-2002.

Health Status: General health condition. 

Anemia: Taking treatment for anemia past 3 months. 

Breastfed: Breastfed or fed breast milk, age stopped 

breastfeeding. 

Dental: Dental coverage included in single service 

plan. 

Diabetes: Diagnosis, treatment, and symptoms of 

diabetes. Blood relatives with diabetes. 

Heart Disease: High cholesterol, cardiovascular disease. 

Personal history of heart disease; blood 

relatives with heart attack. 

Hypertension: High blood pressure, prescribed medicine

and treatment of hypertension. Blood 

relatives with hypertension. 

Obesity: Self-reported weight; weight control and 

exercise. 

52
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: Conducted continuously since 1957. Publicuse files are released annually. 

Coverage: Interviewed sample for 2002 was 36,106 

households; oversampled for blacks and 

Hispanics. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian and Alaska Native only”

and “Indian (American), Alaska Native,” 

single-race and primary-race. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Region. 

Indian Health Service: Insurance coverage through Indian Health 

Service. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total family income, earned income, sources 

of income, and ratio of income to poverty. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP and WIC. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Health status compared to 12 months ago. 

Anemia: Anemia during past 12 months. 

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Dental pain, dental visit, postponed dental 

care, dental care provided by single service 

plan. 

Diabetes: Diabetes diagnosis, limited activity due to 

diabetes. 

Heart Disease: Congenital heart disease, coronary heart

disease, heart attack, irregular heartbeats,

congestive heart failure, heart disease or 

heard condition diagnosis. Limited activity 

due to heart problem. 

Hypertension: Hypertension diagnosis, limited activity due 

to hypertension/high blood pressure. 

Obesity: Birth weight (for children), height and 

weight, BMI, desirable body weight, limited 

due to weight problem/overweight/obesity. 

53
National Household Education Survey (NHES) 

Responsible Organization: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Frequency: Conducted every 1 to 2 year(s) since 1991. 

Coverage: The 2001 survey oversampled areas with 

high percentages of blacks and Hispanics, 

and had three components: the Early 

Childhood Program Participation Survey

(ECPP) completed interviews with the 

parents of 6,749 children in preschool or 

younger in 2001. The Before- and AfterSchool Programs and Activities Survey

(ASPA) had interviews with the parents of 

9,583 children in kindergarten through eighth 

grade. The Adult Education and Lifelong

Learning Survey (AELL) had 10,873 

interviews with adult respondents. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian or Alaska Native,” 

primary-race. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Census region, urbanicity, percent of blacks 

and Hispanics, and percent of persons under 

18 living in poverty within zip code. Zip

code identification was excluded from

public-use files for confidentiality reasons. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total household income. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP and WIC. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Child has seen dentist. 

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

54
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY)* 

Responsible Organization: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor. 

Frequency: Survey based on 1979 cohort: annually,

1986-1994; bi-annually 1996-2002. 

Survey based on 1997 cohort: annually,

1997-2002. 

Coverage: The NLSY79 is a nationally-representative 

sample of 12,686 adults who were of the 

ages 14-22 when first interviewed, with 

oversampled blacks, Hispanics, and the nonblack, non-Hispanic economically

disadvantaged. The NSLY97 sample is

composed of 8,984 youths of the ages 12-16 

when initially interviewed, with black and 

Hispanic oversamples. 

American Indian/Alaska Native indicator: “American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut,” primaryrace. In 1979, respondents were able to list 

up to 6 categories for race/ethnicity. Using 

the 6 variables constructed from their 

responses, it is possible to create an inclusive 

race variable.

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Urban/rural and region. The confidential 

geocode data provides information on the 

state, county, CMSA, PMSA, SMSA, and 

MSA of residence. 

Indian Health Service Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Ratio of household income to poverty level, 

poverty indicator, earned income, elements 

of unearned income. 

Food Assistance Programs: WIC and FSP. 

Food Expenditures: Expenditures on food to be consumed in the 

household.

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Respondent-rated health status. 

Anemia: Presence of anemia. 

Breastfed: Whether breastfed children or if children 

were breastfed and for how long. 

Dental: Last dental visit for child. 

Diabetes: Presence of diabetes and when diagnosed. 

Heart Disease: Presence of cardiovascular or heart 

condition. Personal history of angina, 

congestive heart failure, and date of most 

recent heart attack. 

Hypertension: High blood pressure is lumped together with 

diabetes. 

Obesity: Height, weight, perception of weight, and 

weight control. 

55
* This summary examines the NLSY79, NLSY-YA, NLSY-MC, and NLSY97. Some information 

presented here may only be available in one of these surveys. 

56
National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) 

Responsible Organization: Urban Institute. 

Frequency: Conducted in 1997, 1999, and 2002. No

plans for future rounds of data collection. 

Coverage: Information gathered on more than 100,000 

people in approximately 40,000 households 

in each round. Data covers children (up to

18) and nonelderly adults (18-64).

Oversampled 13 target states and lowincome families with children. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian/Native American/Aleutian 

or Eskimo,” primary-race (respondent is 

unable to select multiple race categories). 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Region, state of residence, county code, and 

MSA. Census block group is available on 

confidential data files. 

Indian Health Service: IHS coverage identified if individual is 

currently without employer-sponsored 

insurance but has current coverage under the 

Indian Health Service. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total income for social and CPS-defined 

families, earned and unearned income, ratio 

of income to poverty level.

Food Assistance Programs: WIC, FSP, NSLP, and SBP. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Food security.

Health Status: Respondent-reported health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Number of dental visits, postponed dental

care. 

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

57
National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: Conducted in 1973, 1976, 1988, 1995, and 

2002-2003. Data from the latest round is not 

yet available for public use. 

Coverage: The 2002-2003 sample is nationallyrepresentative of the male and female noninstitutionalized population between the ages 

of 15 and 44, with over 12,500 in-person

interviews. Oversampled for blacks, 

Hispanics, and persons between the ages of 

15 and 24. Note: before the 2002-2003

survey, all other years interviewed females 

only.

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian or Alaska Native,” 

primary-race and inclusive (respondent able 

to choose multiple race categories). 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Address and county.

Indian Health Service: Coverage by Indian Health Service. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total family income, earned income, and 

sources of income. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP and WIC. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Respondent-reported health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Whether breastfed child, age when stopped. 

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Diabetes diagnosis.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Height and weight. 

58
Navajo Health and Nutrition Survey (NHNS) 

Responsible Organization: Navajo Nation, Indian Health Service, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Frequency: 1991-92, 2001-02

Coverage: 1,137 interviews in 715 households, all 

Navajo people living on or near the Navajo 

Reservation. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: All Navajo. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: All Navajo. 

Location Information: IHS Service Unit. 

Indian Health Service: Whether used IHS or Public Health Service 

in last 12 months. 

Income and Poverty Data: Not asked directly; education and 

employment questions used to assess 

socioeconomic status. 

Food Assistance Programs: FDPIR, FSP, WIC, SBP, SLP. 

Food Expenditures: Types of food bought, how often purchase 

food; 24-hour diet recall. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Difficulty getting enough food for family.

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Yes.

Breastfed: Yes.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Yes, survey questions and blood test. 

Heart Disease: Yes, survey questions and cholesterol test. 

Hypertension: Yes, survey questions and blood pressure 

check. 

Obesity: Yes, height and weight both reported by

respondent and taken by interviewer. 

59
Panel Study of Income Dynamics-Child Development Supplement (PSID-CDS)

Responsible Organization: Institute for Survey Research, University of 

Michigan. 

Frequency: Conducted in 1997 and 2002-2003. 

Coverage: CDS-I in 1997 interviewed 2,394 families, 

providing information on 3,563 children (0-

12 years); oversampled low-income families 

and immigrant families. In 2002-2003, CDSII re-interviewed 2,071 families and 

collected information on 2,908 

children/adolescents (5-18 years). 

American Indian/Alaska Native deification: “American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo” 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Able to identify state on public-use files.

Geocode and county identification available 

on PSID sensitive data files. 

Indian Health Service: Insurance coverage from Indian Health 

Service. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total family income. 

Food Assistance Programs: NSLP, SBP. 

Food Expenditures: Food expenditures. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Food security was available in 1997; the

1997 PSID-CDS included a Food Security 

Core Survey Module.

Health Status: Self-rated health 

Anemia: Anemia or iron deficiency diagnosed by

physician 

Breastfed: Breastfed as an infant, age when stopped 

breastfeeding. 

Dental: Expenditures on dental care, dental insurance 

Diabetes: Diabetes diagnosed by physician 

Heart Disease: Heart condition diagnosed by physician, 

chest pain occurrence 

Hypertension: Hypertension diagnosed by physician 

Obesity: Obesity diagnosed by physician, perception 

of weight, weight control and methods 

60
Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance System (PedNSS) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Frequency: Data is collected at the clinic level and 

aggregated at the state level. Data collection 

is ongoing but summaries are available every

six and twelve months. 

Coverage: Children (age 0-5) enrolled in federallyfunded programs that serve low-income 

children in 38 states and 6 tribal 

governments. Data was collected for over 

five million children in 2002, approximate 

percentage reported as American Indian and 

Alaska Native at 1%. Children are not 

randomly selected; therefore, it is a 

convenience sample that may not be 

representative of the American Indian and 

Alaska Native population. 

American Indian/Alaska Native sample size: “American Indian/Alaska Native,” primaryrace, respondents are unable to select more 

than one racial category. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Able to identify by tribe: Cheyenne River 

Sioux (SD), Chickasaw Nation (OK), Inter 

Tribal Council (AZ), Navajo Nation (AZ), 

Rosebud Sioux (SD), Standing Rock(ND). 

Location Information: County level of the clinic (does not 

necessarily represent the county of residence 

of the respondent) and clinic level for those 

counties with more than one reporting clinic. 

Indian Health Service Not available. 

Income Data: Not available. 

Food Assistance Programs: WIC program. 

Food Availability/Spending: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available. 

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Yes – low hemoglobin measure. 

Breastfed: Whether breastfed and length of time 

breastfed. 

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Yes: BMI for age, birth weight, height for 

age. 

61
Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System (PNSS) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Frequency: Collected monthly and tabulated annually. 

Data is collected at the clinic level and 

analyzed by the CDC, as well as at state and 

local levels. 

Coverage: Low-income (near or below poverty)

pregnant women, including teenagers (26%), 

enrolled in public health programs. Currently 

28 states, the District of Columbia, 3 tribal 

governments, Puerto Rico, and the American 

Samoa are implementing, or in the process of 

implementing, the PNSS. Sample of 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

population generally fluctuates between 

6,000 and 11,000 records. This is not a 

random sample, but a convenience sample 

that is not representative of all American

Indian and Alaska Native low-income 

pregnant women. Also note that the data 

suffers from data records that have many 

missing data elements. Also, many lowincome women do not participate in 

programs that contribute data to the PNSS 

and many states do not participate at all – so 

there are some serious limitations to using 

the PNSS data. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian/Alaska Native,” single 

race option. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Chickasaw Nation (OK), Inter Tribal Council 

(AZ), and the Navajo Nation. 

Location Information: County level of the clinic (does not 

necessarily represent the county of residence 

of the respondent) and clinic level for those 

counties with more than one reporting clinic. 

Indian Health Service Not available. 

Income Data: Not available. 

Food Assistance Programs: WIC. Data on other food assistance 

programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, 

may be collected as optional items. 

Food Availability/Spending: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available. 

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Yes, low hemoglobin measure. 

Breastfed: Ever breastfed child. 

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

62
Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Yes. Height, weight, and BMI measure for 

women and also the infants birth weight. 

63
Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Frequency: State-specific data collected annually.

Coverage: Thirty-one states and NYC participate in 

PRAMS. Each state samples between 1,300 

and 3,400 women per year. Smaller but 

higher risk populations are oversampled. A 

set of core questions is asked by all states 

and states have the option to add additional 

questions, either from a standard set of 

questions or state-developed. The most 

recent data for researcher use is 2001 data. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: Yes, “American Indian” or “Alaskan 

Native.” Information taken from the child’s 

birth certificate. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: State and county of residence. 

Indian Health Service: State-developed question identifies coverage 

by IHS. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total family income range (before and after 

pregnancy). 

Food Assistance Programs: WIC. Standard question: FSP during 

pregnancy.

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: State-developed question: Food 

insufficiency.

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Standard question: Anemia in 3 months 

before pregnancy.

Breastfed: Whether breastfed baby and for how long. 

Standard question: Reasons for not 

breastfeeding or stopping breastfeeding? 

State-developed: When you went to WIC 

visits, did you receive information on 

breastfeeding?

Dental: Standard question: Length of time since teeth 

were cleaned. 

Diabetes: Standard question: Diabetes in 3 months 

before pregnancy.

Heart Disease: Standard question: Heart problems in 3 

months before pregnancy.

Hypertension: Standard question: High blood pressure in 3 

months before pregnancy.

Obesity: Height and weight before pregnancy.

64
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 

Responsible Organization: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

Frequency: The SIPP is a continuous series of national 

panels with monthly interviewing. For the 

1984-1993 panels, a panel of households was 

introduced each year in February. A 4-year 

panel was introduced in April 1996. A 2000

panel was introduced in February 2000 for 2 

waves. A 3-year 2001 panel was introduced 

in February 2001. The 2004 panel was 

introduced in February 2004 and will be a 4-

year, 12 wave panel. 

Coverage: Sample sizes range from approximately

14,000 to 36,700 interviewed households. 

The duration of each panel ranges from 2 1/2 

years to 4 years. The SIPP sample is a 

multistage-stratified sample of the U.S. 

civilian noninstitutionalized population. 

Oversampling of low-income households

occurred in the 1990, 1996, 2001 and 2004 

panels. 

SIPP is administered in panels and conducted 

in waves and rotation groups. Within a SIPP 

panel, the entire sample is interviewed at 4-

month intervals. These groups of interviews 

are called waves. Sample members within 

each panel are divided into four subsamples 

of roughly equal size; each subsample is 

referred to as a rotation group. One rotation 

group is interviewed each month. During the 

interview, information is collected about the 

previous 4 months, which are referred to as 

reference months. Thus, each sample 

member is interviewed every 4 months, with 

information about the previous 4-month 

period collected in each interview. 

SIPP is a longitudinal survey that collects 

information on topics such as poverty, 

income, employment, and health insurance 

coverage. SIPP core content covers 

demographic characteristics, work 

experience, earnings, program participation, 

transfer income, and asset income. Each

interview wave contains additional topical 

content, including one or more topical 

modules (TM), allowing the Census Bureau 

to address a range of subjects. 

65
American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo” 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: Region, state of residence, metropolitan area, 

and MSA. Data do not support analysis of 

non-metropolitan areas. Census does not

recommend analyses at the state level. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Data for about 70 cash and in-kind Sources 

at each 4- month wave, with monthly 

reporting for most Sources. 

Food Assistance Programs: WIC, Food Stamps. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Whether members of household had 

sufficient food to eat during the 4 month

reference period, Adult Well Being, TM.

Health Status: Self reported and proxy health status from

Medical Expenses and Work Disability TM; 

health and disability status from Health and 

Disability TM, and Adult and Child 

Functional Limitation and Disability TMs. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Visits to dental professionals in the 

Utilization of Health Care Services TM;

needed to see a dentist past 12 months but 

did not go, Adult Well Being TM. 

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

66
Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD) 

Responsible Organization: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

Frequency: Annually, 1997-2002

Coverage: Sample was drawn from 1992 and 1993 SIPP 

panels. The 2002 SPD interviewed 12,496 

households; the survey oversampled for lowincome families with children. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian, Aleut or Eskimo,” 

primary-race (not able to select multiple race 

categories). 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: State and region. Household address may be 

accessed on confidential files. 

Indian Health Service: Coverage by Indian Health Service. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total income, earned and unearned income, 

income percentile rank, ratio of income and 

family income to poverty. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP, WIC, NSLP, SBP. 

Food Expenditures: Amount spent on food in house and away 

from home.

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Sufficiency of food in house and explanation, 

food security.

Health Status: General health condition, respondent-rated. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Number of dental visits. 

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

67
Washington State Population Survey (WSPS) 

Responsible Organization: Office of Financial Management, State of 

Washington.

Frequency: Biennially, most recent public-use data from

2002. 

Coverage: 6,700 Washington state households. 

Oversampled African Americans, Native 

Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 

Hispanics. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian/Alaska Native,” primaryrace. Also, variables identify as 1st choice 

race through 8th choice race. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Not available. 

Location Information: County of primary residence, region. 

Indian Health Service: Not available. 

Income and Poverty Data: Total household income, earned and 

unearned income, sources of income, ratio of 

income to poverty level. 

Food Assistance Programs: FSP. 

Food Expenditures: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Respondent-reported health status. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Not available.

Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Not available.

68
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) 

Responsible Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Frequency: Biennially since 1991. Most recent publicuse file is for 2001. 

Coverage: National school-based sample of students, 

grades 9 to 12, with an oversample of 

schools with substantial numbers of black 

and Hispanic students. The target population 

comprises all public and private high school 

students in the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia. U.S. territories are excluded 

from the sampling frame. Therefore there are 

only about 150 interviews completed with 

American Indian and Alaska Native youth in 

the national survey, which has an overall 

sample size of approximately 15,000. 

However, special population surveys have

been conducted periodically. Examples of 

special population surveys are those 

conducted among American Indian youth. 

CDC has provided technical assistance to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the 

Navajo Nation to conduct the YRBS. Since 

1994, BIA periodically has conducted 

surveys of American Indian youth attending 

middle and high schools funded by BIA. 

Since 1997, the Navajo Nation 

has periodically conducted surveys in both 

schools on Navajo reservations and those in 

border towns having high Navajo enrollment. 

American Indian/Alaska Native identification: “American Indian or Alaska Native,” single 

race option. 

American Indian/Alaska Native subgroups: Navajo Nation, through the special 

population surveys 

Location Information: Census region (4 groups) and metro 

status(urban, suburban, rural) 

Indian Health Service Not available. 

Income Data: Not available. 

Food Assistance Programs: Not available. 

Food Availability/Spending: Not available. 

Food Sufficiency/Hunger: Not available.

Health Status: Not available. 

Anemia: Not available.

Breastfed: Not available.

Dental: Yes , date of last dental visit. 

69
Diabetes: Not available.

Heart Disease: Not available. 

Hypertension: Not available.

Obesity: Height, weight, and self-assessed weight 

category(slightly or very overweight or 

underweight). 

70
Appendix B: Special Surveys with Data on the Use and Impact of Food Assistance Programs 

on Indian Reservations 

Author (Year) Population Studied Survey Content 

Davis et al. (2000) 30 FSP participants, Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation (Montana) 

use of benefits; obstacles to 

maintaining eligibility; experiences 

with work requirements 

Davis et al. (2002) 32 reservation residents who 

worked seasonally or faced 

barriers to employment, Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation (Montana) 

experiences with food assistance; food 

security 

Grant (2000) Gros Ventre and Assiniboine 

people living on or near the Fort 

Belknap Reservation (Montana) 

program participation; use of 

traditional foods 

Henry (2000) college students, Pine Ridge 

Reservation (Oglala Lakota, South 

Dakota) 

food security; nutritional knowledge 

Hiwalker et al. 

(2002) 

475 households, Northern 

Cheyenne Reservation (Montana) 

program participation; diabetes risk 

factors; food security 

Ikeda et al. (1993) 51 users of the Mariposa Indian 

Health Center (California) 

FSP eligibility and participation; WIC 

eligibility and participation 

Lopez, Reader, and 

Buseck (2002) 

128 Tohono O’odham households 

(Arizona) 

program participation; use of 

traditional foods; diabetes prevalence 

Miller (1994) 1,356 FDPIR households on seven 

Montana reservations 

participation in, and extent of reliance 

on, the FDPIR and other food 

assistance programs; health problems; 

use of special diets 

Pareo and Bauer 

(2002) 

171 Navajo Head Start students 

(New Mexico and Arizona) 

nutritional status; food preferences 

Parrish (2002) 40 elders among Keweenaw Bay 

Ojibwa living on or near the 

L’Anse Reservation (Michigan) 

health status; food consumption 

Phillips (2000) 216 Cheyenne River Lakota 

households (South Dakota) 

dietary choices; weight control 

practices 

Usher, Shanklin, and 

Wildfire (1990) 

757 FDPIR participants and 107 

American Indians living on 

reservations with FDPIR programs 

who chose to participate in the 

FSP instead 

program participation; perceptions of 

FDPIR and FSP; accessibility of 

program offices and grocery stores; 

food expenditures; supplementary 

food sources 

71
Appendix C: Food Stamp Program/Food Distribution Program on 

Indian Reservations, “Participation in Food Programs - by Race” 

72
FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 0584-0025

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

PARTICIPATION IN FOOD PROGRAMS - BY RACE

FNS Instruction 113-1

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0584-0025. The time required to complete this information

collection is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for review ing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

NOTE: Total number of participating household contacts in item 6 should agree with the data reported on the respective monthly report (July)

submitted for the Food Stamp Program (Form FNS-388A) or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (Form FNS-152).

1. STATE/ITO

5. REPORTING YEAR

July ____________

6. NO. OF HOUSEHOLD

CONTACTS PARTICIPATING BY RACE

2. PROGRAM (" X" one only). 3A. NAME OF PROJECT AREA

Use separate f orm for each

program).

FOOD STAMP

FDPIR

4. NAME & ADDRESS OF REPORTING WELFARE AGENCY OR

DISTRIBUTING AGENCY

8. REM ARKS

BLACK OR

AFRICAN AMER

ASIAN

AMERICAN INDIAN

OR

ALASKA NATIVE

WHITE

TOTAL

(See Note Below )

DATE TITLE SIGNATURE

FORM FNS-101 (9-98) Previous edition obsolet e ORIGINAL - FNS Regional Off ice

No f urt her monies or other benef its may be paid out under these programs unless this report

is com plet ed and f iled as authorized by existing law (Tit le VI of the Civ il Right s Ac t of 1964.

Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01

7. NO. OF HISPANIC

OR LATINO HH

CONTACTS BY RACE

NATIVE HAWAIIAN

OR OTHER

PACIFIC ISLANDER

MORE THAN

ONE RACE

3B. PROJECT AREA CODE
INSTRUCTIONS

This report will be prepared annually covering the month of July.

REPORTING UNITS - Send the original and one copy to reach the State Agency as soon as possible, but

no later than the 20th of August.

STATE AGENCIES AND INDIAN TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS (ITOs) - shall determine that reports have been

received from all reporting units. The original copy shall be forwarded to the appropriate FNS Regional Office

to reach that office as soon as possible, but no later than the 19th of September.

REGIONAL OFFICES - shall determine that reports have been received from all State Agencies, Indian Tribal

Organizations, and reporting units. The regional office shall enter all local agency information into FSPIIS

and SNPIIS databases by the 20th of November.

Items 1 thru 5 and 8 - self explanatory.

Item 6 - A household contact is the person who completes the application or is interviewed. Report for only

one household contact per participating household. Report for each racial group the number of household

contacts that participated (received coupon benefits or commodities) during July and that selected one race.

Report the number of household contacts that participated in July and that reported they are more than one

race in the " More Than One Race" block.

Item 7 - Using the same racial categories from item 6, in item 7 blocks, report for each racial group the

number of household (HH) contacts who participated in July w ho are Hispanic or Latino.

FORM FNS-101 (9-98) (Reverse)
Appendix D: Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, 

“Commodity Acceptability Progress Report” 

75
 76

FOOD DISTRIBUTION 

COMMODITY ACCEPTABILITY PROGRESS (CAP) REPORT 

FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS 

 

[Please Scroll Down Page to Continue] 

NOTICE: The OMB control number for the officially approved FORM FNS-663 is 0584-0293. This alternative form may be used by 

participating State Distributing Agencies and submitted to the appropriate USDA Regional Office by the specified due date. 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: The information provided in this report along with nutrition objectives, budgetary factors, and marketing 

indicators will be used by USDA to: 

(1) Provide commodities that will help program participants meet the Dietary Guidelines 

for Americans; 

(2) Make purchasing decisions regarding the forms and quantities of commodities to procure 

for program participants for the applicable fiscal year; 

(3) Improve commodity specifications to ensure that USDA commodities are acceptable to 

households participating in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); and 

(4) Identify new products desirable to program participants. 

PLEASE COMPLETE THIS REPORT AND RETURN IT TO YOUR

 FNS REGIONAL OFFICE BY APRIL 30, 2004

 

 

 

NAVIGATION TIPS FOR COMPLETING THIS SCREEN FILLABLE DOCUMENT!!! You can scroll 

through this fill-in document by using the mouse and the vertical scroll bar on the right side of your 

screen. Or you can use the tab key to scroll through this document field-by-field and page-by-page. 

After scrolling or using the tab key, you can click on the imbedded form field where you want to start 

typing. For some data fields, you can simply click on the square-shaped check boxes [ ] to insert a 

check mark [“X”] in the check box. You can then use your mouse or tab key to scroll to the next form 

field or page. When finished, you can save the form with the filled-in data and then email this 

electronic version of the report to your FNS Regional Office. 
 77

Part I – Indian Tribal Organizations (ITO) Information 

1. State: 

 

2. ITO/DA 3-Digit Code: 

 

3. ITO/DA Name: 

 

4A. Number of Eligible FDPIR 

Households Served Per Month: 

 

4B. Number of FDPIR 

Households Surveyed: 

 

 

 

4C. Number of Respondent FDPIR 

Households: 

 

5C. Name of State Official (Please Print): 

 

 

5B. Signature of State Official: 5C. Date Signed: (mm/dd/yyyy) 

 

ALTERNATIVE STATE CAP REPORT – FDPIR (DA-663E) 

 

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part II – Product Acceptance 

 

6. ”TOP FIVE” MOST ACCEPTABLE and LEAST ACCEPTABLE PRODUCTS – BY FOOD GROUP – i.e., Meats, Meat Alternates, 

Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, and Other Products. The USDA donated commodities listed in Items 6A - 6F of this report were available during 

this reporting period. For each Food Group, please place an “X” in the column labeled “TOP FIVE MOST ACCEPTABLE PRODUCTS” for 

no more than FIVE products receiving the highest evaluations by FDPIR households. Also, please place an “X” in the column labeled “TOP 

FIVE LEAST ACCEPTABLE PRODUCTS” for no more than FIVE products that received the lowest ratings by your households. (Note: In 

Item 8, Part IV of this report, you will be able to provide feedback to us on how to improve any of our USDA products -- whether they are 

identified as either Least Acceptable or Most Acceptable in this part.) 

6A. MEATS (Beef, Chicken, Fish, Pork)

USDA/FNS 

CODE

 

COMMODITY DESCRIPTION PACK SIZE

TOP FIVE 

MOST 

ACCEPTABLE 

 PRODUCTS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”)

TOP FIVE 

LEAST 

ACCEPTABLE 

PRODUCTS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”)

A609 Beef Ground 1, Frozen Fine 40/1 lb packages 

A610 Beef w/Natural Juices, Canned 24/29 oz cans 

A590 Beef Stew Chunky Canned 24/24 oz cans 

A606 Bison Ground Frozen 10 4/10 lb packages 

A634 Bison Ground Frozen 2 20/2 lb packages 

A611 Bison Stew Meat, Canned 24 oz cans 

A633 Bison Stew Meat, Canned 20/2 lb packages 

A635 Buffalo Lean, Ground, Frozen 20/2 lb packages 

A562 Chicken Canned, Boned 24/29 oz cans 

A557 Chicken Cut-Up 4 lb. Frozen 12/#4 lb packages 

A669 Ham Water Added 3, Frozen 12/3 lb carton 

A617 Luncheon Meat Canned Pork 24/30 oz cans 

A803 Salmon 24 24/14.75 oz cans 

 A743 Tuna 12 Chunk Light In Water 24/12 oz cans 

 

 

6B. MEAT ALTERNATES (Beans, Cheese, Eggs/Egg Products, Peanut Products)

A912 Beans Baby Lima 2 Dry 12/2 lb package 

A062 Beans Blackeye 300 24/#300 cans 

A917 Beans Great Northern 2 Dry 12/2 lb package 
 78

A920 Beans Light, Red Kidney 2 Dry 12/2 lb package 

A912 Beans Baby Lima 2 Dry 12/2 lb package 

A914 Beans Pinto 2 Dry 12/2 lb package 

A093 Beans Refried 300 24/#300 can 

A090 Beans Vegetable 300 24/#300 cans 

B060 Cheese 30 Processed Block 6/5 lb loaves 

B119 Cheese-Blend Amer/Skim Milk Sliced - Yellow 6/5 lb loaves 

A570 Egg Mix 6 48/6 oz package 

B474 Peanut Butter Smooth 18 12/18 oz 

B501 Peanuts Roasted 12 24/12 oz cans 

 

 
 79

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part II – Product Acceptance 

6C. FRUITS/JUICES (Canned, Fresh, Frozen)

USDA/FNS 

CODE

 

COMMODITY DESCRIPTION PACK SIZE

TOP FIVE 

MOST 

ACCEPTABLE 

 PRODUCTS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”)

TOP FIVE 

LEAST 

ACCEPTABLE 

PRODUCTS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”)

A282 Apple Juice 12/46 oz cans 

A351 Applesauce 300 24/#300 cans 

A353 Apricots Halves 300 24/#300 cans 

A287 Cranberry Sauce 24/#300 cans 

A279 Cranberry-Apple Juice 12/46 oz cans 

A403 Fruit Cocktail 300 Canned 24/#300 cans 

A260 Fruit-Nut Mix 24 Dried 24/1 lb 

A285 Grape Juice, Cans 12/46 oz cans 

A284 Grape Juice 46, Cartons 12/46 oz cartons 

A280 Grapefruit Juice 12/46 oz cans 

A300 Orange Juice 12/46 oz cans 

A411 Peaches Cling 300 24/#300 cans 

A437 Pears 300 24/#300 cans 

A446 Pineapple 2 24/#2 cans 

A286 Pineapple Juice 12/46 oz cans 

A489 Plums Dried 24 (Prunes) 24/1 lb 

A501 Raisins 24 24/15 oz packages 

A290 Tomato Juice 12/46 oz cans 

 

 

6D. VEGETABLES (Canned, Fresh, Frozen)

A059 Beans Green 300 24/#300 cans 

A098 Carrots 300 24/#300 cans 

A119 Corn Kernel 300 24/#300 cans 

A122 Corn Cream 300 24/#300 cans 

A144 Peas 300 24/#300 cans 

A196 Potatoes Dehydrated 12 Flakes 12/1 package 

A170 Potatoes Sliced White 24/#300 cans 

A164 Pumpkin 300 24/#300 cans 

A219 Soup Tomato 24/#1 cans 

A218 Soup Vegetable 24/#1 cans 

A236 Spaghetti Sauce Meatless 24#300 cans 

A167 Spinach 300 24#300 cans 

A223 Sweet Potatoes 300 24#300 cans 

A244 Tomato Sauce 300 24#300 cans 

A240 Tomatoes 300 24/#300 cans 

A057 Vegetable Mix 300 24#300 cans 

 

 
 80

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part II – Product Acceptance 

6E. GRAINS (Cereal, Cornmeal, Flour, Rice, Pasta Products)

USDA/FNS 

CODE

 

COMMODITY DESCRIPTION PACK SIZE

TOP FIVE 

MOST 

ACCEPTABLE 

 PRODUCTS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”)

TOP FIVE 

LEAST 

ACCEPTABLE 

PRODUCTS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”)

A263 Almonds Roasted 2 12/2 lb 

B855 Cereal Corn & Rice 12 14/12 oz packaging 

B846 Cereal Corn 12 Squares 14/ 12 oz package 

B851 Cereal Corn 16 Squares 14/16 oz package 

B878 Cereal Corn Flakes 18 12/18 oz package 

B879 Cereal Corn Flakes 18 12/18 oz package 

B853 Cereal Oats 15 Circles 12/15 oz package 

B856 Cereal Rice 12 Crisps 12/13.5 oz package 

B857 Cereal Rice 13.5 Crisps 14/13.5 oz package 

B877 Cereal Wheat Bran Flakes 12 12/17.3 oz packages 

B876 Cereal Wheat Bran Flakes 14 14/17.3 oz packages 

B138 Cornmeal Degermed 8/5 8/5 lb package 

B370 Crackers Unsalted 12/16 oz box 

B160 Farina 24/14 oz package 

B182 Flour All Purpose Bleached 8/5 8/5 lb package 

B367 Flour/Bakery Mix 6/5 lb bag 

B368 Flour/Bakery Mix Low Fat, Biscuit 6/5 lb bag 

B437 Oats 24 Rolled 12/42 oz tube 

B424 Egg Noodle 1 12/1 lb package 

B436 Macaroni & Cheese 12/26 oz package 

B425 Macaroni 1 24/1 lb package 

 B510 Rice 2 Milled 24/2 lb package 

B528 Rice Long-Grain Milled 30/2 lb package 

B835 Spaghetti 2 Enriched 12/2 lb package 

 

 

6F. OTHER PRODUCTS (Butter, Milk, Syrup, Oils/Shortenings)

B050 Butter 36 30/1 lb cartons 

B117 Milk Evaporated 24 24/12 oz cans 

B095 Milk Instant 2 - Nonfat Dry 12/25.6 oz package 

B666 Oil Vegetable 48 8/48 oz 

B720 Shortening 3 Vegetable 12/3 lb cans 

A258 Syrup 12/24 oz plastic btl. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 81

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part III – DoD Fresh Produce Acceptance 

7. MOST POPULAR DoD FRESH PRODUCE ITEMS. The items listed below were available to FDPIR households during this reporting 

period through the Department of Defense (DoD) Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Project. If you received DoD fresh produce, please mark an 

“X” next to the Most Popular fruits and vegetable items that your FDPIR households rated the highest. You may also provide additional 

comments about any of the DoD fresh produce items listed below. 

 

7A. DoD FRESH FRUITS 

COMMODITY 

MOST 

POPULAR DoD 

PRODUCE 

ITEMS 

(Click on Check Box 

to Insert “X”) 

COMMENTS 

(OPTIONAL--- Not to exceed one line of text per commodity) 

Apples 

Grapefruit 

Mixed Fruits 

Oranges 

Pears 

Peaches 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7B. DoD FRESH VEGETABLES 

Carrots 

Carrots Baby 

Celery 

Cucumbers 

Green Peppers 

Onions, Dry 

Onions, Red 1 

Potatoes, Red 

Potatoes, Russet 

Squash, Winter 1 

Squash, Yellow Summer 1 

Sweet Potatoes 

Turnips 

Corn 

Cabbage Green 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 82

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part IV – Product Improvements 

 

8. USDA PRODUCTS THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVED. Please provide a brief explanation of the problems found with each of the Least 

Acceptable Products identified in items 6A – 6F (Part II) of this report. We would also like to know how USDA can further improve any other 

products received by FDPIR households during this reporting period, including those identified as Most Acceptable Products in Part II of 

this report. (Note: For the Block labeled “Problem Codes/No. Of Respondents,” please check all of the problem codes that correspond with 

codes listed in the “Problem Code Table” shown below. Also, please be sure to enter the 4-digit USDA/FNS “commodity code” and 

“commodity description” for each product for which you provide comments---see list of commodities/codes in Items 6A-6F). 

Problem Code Table

(multiple codes may be used below – e.g. 1,2,3,4,5,6) 

1. Overall Product Evaluation – program recipients do not like; too labor intensive. 

2. Nutrition – too much fat, grease, salt/sodium and/or sugar. 

3. Quality – bad taste/flavor; poor texture; too tough; strong aroma/smell, cookability/ meltability problems; or poor appearance. 

4. Delivery/Timing - damaged packages/ 

products; timeliness of deliveries. 

5. Packaging - poor quality or wrapping; pack size too small, or pack size too large. 

6. Other (see “Additional Comments” block). 

Problem Codes/No. Of Respondents

(Click Mouse to Check All That Apply) Code Commodity 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Total 

Respondents 

Additional Comments 

MEATS (Beef, Fish, Pork, Poultry) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEAT ALTERNATES (Beans, Cheese, Eggs/Egg Products, Peanut Products) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRUITS/JUICES (Canned, Fresh, Frozen) 

 

 

 

 
 83

 

 
 84

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part IV – Product Improvements – Cont’d 

Problem Code Table

(multiple codes may be used below – e.g. 1,2,3,4,5,6) 

1. Overall Product Evaluation – program recipients do not like; too labor intensive. 

2. Nutrition – too much fat, grease, salt/sodium and/or sugar. 

3. Quality – bad taste/flavor; poor texture; too tough; strong aroma/smell, cookability/ meltability problems; or poor appearance. 

4. Delivery/Timing - damaged packages/ 

products; timeliness of deliveries. 

5. Packaging - poor quality or wrapping; pack size too small, or pack size too large. 

6. Other (see “Additional Comments” block). 

Problem Codes/No. Of Respondents

(Click Mouse to Check All That Apply) Code Commodity 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Total 

Respondents 

Additional Comments 

VEGETABLES (Canned, Fresh, Frozen) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAINS (Cereal, Cornmeal, Flour, Rice, Pasta Products) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OTHER PRODUCTS (Butter, Milk, Syrup, Oils/Shortenings) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 85

 

 
 86

Commodity Acceptability Progress Report 

Part V – New Products and General Comments 

 

9. NEW PRODUCTS – (OPTIONAL). Please list no more than FIVE products NOT currently offered by USDA, which at least 25 percent of 

respondent FDPIR households would be interested in receiving, especially those products that might help them meet the FEDERAL 

DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS. Also, please list and rank the items in “1-2-3” priority order with “Item 1” representing the

product “MOST” preferred by your households along with the number of respondents requesting that product. For the block labeled 

Planned Usage, click on the applicable field and select only “ONE” item per commodity from the drop-down list that represents the 

“Primary” way in which the product will be used—e.g., as an Entrée Item, for Sandwiches, etc. (Note: Please do NOT request any type 

of condiments such as catsup, mustard, salt, pepper, etc. since USDA does not purchase such items). 

A B C D E 

ITEM NEW PRODUCT 

REQUESTED

PREFERRED FORM/ 

PACK SIZE 

PLANNED USAGE 

CODE KEY 

(Click on each form field box below 

and make only “1” selection per Item 

from the drop-down list)

1. Entrée Item 

4. Salads 

2. Sandwiches 

5. Stews 

3. Soups 

6. Casseroles

# OF FDPIR 

HOUSEHOLDS 

REQUESTING THIS 

ITEM 

1 ____________________________ 

2 ____________________________ 

3 ____________________________ 

4 ____________________________ 

5 ____________________________ 

10A. How do FDPIR households the overall quality and acceptability of USDA donated commodities received during this 

reporting period? Please indicate the “number” of respondent households that gave USDA commodities an overall rating of ..... 

 

 

Excellent 

 

Satisfactory 

 

Unsatisfactory 

 

Total Respondents 
 87

10B. For those FDPIR households that received fresh produce through the DoD Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Project, how would 

they rate the overall quality and acceptability of the fresh produce items provided by DoD? Please indicate the “number” of 

respondent FDPIR households that gave DoD fresh produce items an overall rating of ..... 

 

Excellent 

 

Satisfactory 

 

Unsatisfactory 

 

Total Respondents 

11. General Comments/Recommendations – (Optional): 

1. 

 

2. 

 

3. 

 

4. 

 

5. 

 

6. 

 

7. 

 

8. 

 

9. 

 
Appendix E: Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, 

“Monthly Distribution of Donated Foods to Family Units” 

88
U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF DONATED

FOODS TO FAMILY UNITS

According to the Paperw ork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0584-0293.

The time required to complete this collection is estimated to average 2.5 hours per response, including the time to review

instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information.

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

M ONTH

BEANS GREEN 300

BEANS GREEN 303

BEANS VEG/ 300

CARROTS

CARROTS 300

CORN KERNEL 300

CORN CREAM

CORN KERNEL

CORN CREAM 300

LENTILS

PEAS 300

PEAS 303

PUMPKIN

PUMPKIN 300

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

I certify that this report is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

REM ARKS

FORM FNS-152 (5-00) Previous editions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version 89

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1. HOUSEHOLDS CERTIFIED

2. HOUSEHOLDS PARTICIPATING

3. NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

4. STATE

5. NAME OF SDA/ITO 6. DA CODE

7. REPORT M ONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

MONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 0584-0293

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

12. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OFFICIAL 13. TITLE 14. DATE

A059 #300 can

A060 #303 can

A090 #300 can

A095 #303 can

A098 #300 can

A119 #300 can

A120 #303 can

A121 #303 can

A122 #300 can

A135 2# pkg.

A144 #300 can

A145 #303 can

A163 #303 can

A164 #300 can
19

20

LINE NO.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

M ONTH

SPINACH

SPINACH 300

POTATOES 303

A221

APPLESAUCE 303 A355 24#303 can

28

29

30

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

FORM FNS-152 (5/00) Previous editions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version

90

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

17

18

F COCKTAIL 303

SDA/ITO

A401

DA CODE REPORT MONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

MONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

A280 31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

A166 24#303 can

A167 24#300 can

A169 24#300-303

A170 24#300 can

A196 12/1 # pkg

24#303 can

A223 24#300 can

A240 24#300 can

A244 24#300-303

A248 24#303 can

A251 12/24 oz

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

A258 12/24 oz

12/46 oz

A282 12/46 oz

A285 12/46 oz

A286 12/46 oz

A290 12/46 oz

A300 12/46 oz

24/#303 can

F COCKTAIL 300 A403 24/#300 can

PEACHES CLG 300 A411 24/#300 can

PEACHES CLG 303 A412 24/#303 can

POTATOES SLC 300

POTATOES DHY 12

SWT POTATOES 303

SWT POTATOES 300

TOMATOES 300

TOM SAUCE 300

TOMATOES 303

SYRUP P

SYRUP P 12/24

GRAPEFRUIT J

APPLE J

GRAPE J

PINEAPPLEJ

TOMATO J

ORANGE J
44

45

LINE NO.

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

AMOUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

M ONTH

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

FORM FNS-152 (5/00) Previous editions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version

91

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

70

PEARS 300 A437

SDA/ITO

24/#300 can

DA CODE REPORT MONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

MONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

PEARS 303 A439 24/#303 can

PINEAPPLE2 A446 24/#2 can

PLUMS 303 A461 24/#303 can

PRUNES 1 A480 24/#1 can

RAISINS 48 A502 48/#1 can

CARROTS 5 F111 10/5 lb.

CARROTS 1 F113 48/1 lb.

ONIONS 3 F120 16/3 lb.

POTATOES RUS BIN

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

F130 200/5 lb.

POTATOES RUS 5 F131 8/5 lb.

POTATOES RED F140 16/3 lb.

SQUASH YEL F151 1/24 lb.

TURNIPS 3 F171 16/3 lb.

APPLES FRESH F511 8/5 lb.

GRAPEFRUIT 5 F521 8/5 lb.

ORANGE FRESH F530 8/5 lb.

CHICKEN CND A562 24/29 oz.

EGG MIX 6 A570 48/6 oz.

STEW CND A587 24/24oz.
44

45

LINE NO.

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

AMOUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

M ONTH

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

FORM FNS-152 (5/00) Previous editions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version

92

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

70

BEANS DK R KIDNEY A906

SDA/ITO

24/15 oz.

DA CODE REPORT MONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

MONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

12/#2

BEANS BLKEYE 2

36/#1

A910 12/#2

24/29 oz.

BEANS B LIMA 2 A912

24/30 oz.

12/#2

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

BUTTER 36 B050 36/1 lb.

CHEESE 30 B060 6/5 lb.

EVAP 12 B081 48/12 fl oz.

BEANS PINTO A914

24/29 oz.

12/#2

24/12.5 oz.

BEANS R KIDNEY 2 A915

24/12.25 oz.

12/#2

BEANS GRT NORTH 2

48/14.75 oz.

A917 12/#2

24/14.75 oz.

STEW 24/15

BEEF 1

BEEF NJ

LUNCHMEAT P 24

PORK NJ

TUNA 12.5

TUNA 12.25

SALMON PINK

SALMON 24

A589

A598

A610

A617

A630

A740

A741

A800

A803

BEANS NAVY PEA 2 A918 12/#2

BEANS LT KIDNEY 2 A920 12/#2

PEAS SPLIT 2 A922 12/#2

INSTANT 24 B090 6/4 lb.

EVAP 24 B117 24/12 fl oz.

CORNMEAL 5 DEG B137 10/5 lb.
CORNMEAL 8/5 DEG B138

LINE NO.

8/5 lb.

CORNMEAL 10 DEG B141 5/10 ;lb.

CORNMEAL 40 DEG B142 4/10 lb.

AMOUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

M ONTH

FORMULA PWDR 14.1 B158 24/14 oz.

FARINA B160 24/14 oz.

CEREAL INFANT R8

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

FORM FNS-152 (5/00) Previous editions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version

93

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

98

SDA/ITO

99

DA CODE REPORT MONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

MONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

FORM SOY DRY 6/14

B161 12/8 oz.

B162 6/14 oz.

FORMULA SOY 12 B163 12/13 fl oz.

FORMULA 12 B164 12/13 fl oz.

FORMULA B165 24/13 fl oz.

FORMULA SOY B166 24/13 fl oz.

FORMULA POWDER B167 12/1 lb.

FORMULA POWDER 6 B168 6/1 lb.

FORM SOY PWDR 6 B169 6/1 lb.

FLOUR AP 5 B179 10/5 lb.

FLOUR AP 10 B180 5/10 lb.

FLOUR AP 10 UNBL B181 5.10 lb.

FLOUR AP 8/5 B182 8/5 lb.

FLOUR AP 40 B183 4/10 lb.

FLOUR AP 40 UNBL B188 4/10 lb.

FLOUR B 10 B230 5/10 lb.

FLOUR B 8/5 B232 8/5 lb.

FLOUR B 40 B233 4/10 lb.

FLOUR WW 10 B350 5/10 lb.
LINE NO.

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

FORM FNS-152 (5/ 00) Prev ious edit ions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version

94

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

SDA/ ITO DA CODE REPORT MONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

M ONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AMOUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

FLOUR WW 40 B351 4/10 lb.

FLOUR MIX B367 6/5 lb.

FLOUR MIX LOFAT B368 6/5 lb.

GRITS CW 5 B381 10/5 lb.

GRITS CW 40 B382 8/5 lb.

HONEY 24 B403 24/24 oz.

MACARONI 1 B425 24/1 lb.

MAC N CHEESE B436 12/26 oz.

OATS 3 B445 12/3 lb.

PB 2 B470 24/2 lb.

PB RDI-FAT 2 B471 24/2 lb.

CHUNKY RDU-FAT 2 B488 24/2 lb.

ROASTED 12 B501 24/12 oz.

RICE 2 B510 24/2 lb.

VEG OIL 48 B666 8/48 oz.

SHORT S B720 12/3 lb.

SPAGHETTI 2 B835 12/2 lb.

CER CORN RTE 17.5 B847 14/17.5 oz.

CERAL RICE 15 B848 12/15 oz.

CERAL CORN 18 B849 12/18 oz.

CERAL OATS 16 B851 14/16 oz.

CEREAL CORN 17.5 B852 12/17.5 oz.

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151
CEREAL OATS 15.5 B854

LINE NO.

12/15.5 oz.

CEREAL OATS B860 12/15 oz.

CEREAL OATS 16 B861 12/16 oz.

AMOUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

M ONTH

CEREAL RICE 12 B866 12/13 oz.

CEREAL RICE 17.5 B867 12/17.5 oz.

CER RICE RTE 17.5 B868

11. INVENTORY

COMMODITY

LINE NO.

FORM FNS-152 (5/00) Previous editions obsolete Electronic Form Version Designed in Jet Form 5.01 Version

95

FOOD LOSS

REPORTING

UNIT

AMOUNT

ISSUED

(9b)

14/17.5 oz.

SDA/ITO

CEREAL WHEAT 16

DA CODE REPORT MONTH

AMOUNT

REDONATED

OUT

(9c)

8. USDA COMMODITY

TOTAL

WITH

DRAWALS

(9d) - (10e) =

9. RECEIPTS

(9b)

AMOUNT

RECEIVED

(10e)

AMOUNT

REDONATED

IN

(10a)

B871 12/16 oz.

(10d)

(10b)

CODE

(10c)

TOTAL

AMOUNT

AVAILABLE

DURING

MONTH

(9a) + (9b) +

(9c) =

(9d)

10. WITHDRAWALS

(10a) + (10b)

(10c) + (10d)

=

BOOK

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(9a)

AM OUNT

ON HAND

FIRST OF

MONTH

(11c)

ADJUSTMENTS

POSITIVE/

NEGATIVE

PHYSICAL

INVENTORY

END OF

MONTH

(11a) (11b)

(11a -/+ 11b) =

CER WHEAT RTE 16 B872 14/16 oz.

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

152

154

153

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178
SUBMISSION: Forward the original of this document to the appropriate Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

office no later than 30 calendar days following the last day of the month being reported. SDAs do not

complete items 1, 2, 3, or Column 10c. SDAs are those facilities w hich hold FDPIR inventory but do not

issue commodities to program participant s.

ITEM

1. Number of Households Certified. Enter the number of households (not individual persons)

which have been certified eligible to receive commodities from this Distribution Center during the report

month.

2. Number of Households Participating. Enter the total lnumber of households (not individual

persons) which actually received commodities from this Distribution Center during the report month.

3. Number of Participants. Enter the total number of persons in households which actually

received commodities from this Distribution Center during the report month.

4. State. Enter the name of the State in which the SDA or ITO is located.

5. Name of State Distributing Agency (SDA) or Indian Tribal Organization (ITO). Enter the

name of the SDA or the reporting ITO acting as the SDA.

6. Distributing Agency Code. Enter the 4 digit SNPIIS code for the reporting SDA or ITO.

7. Report for the Month of. Enter the month and year for w hich data is reported.

COLLUMNS

(8a) (8b) & (8c) Preprinted.

All commodities being reported must agree with the commodit y title and commodity code as

preprinted on the form. If a specific commodit y is not preprinted, it must be written in along with the

correct commodit y short title, commodity code and reporting unit (e.g., #300 can, 16 oz. box, 2 lb. bag).

Blank spaces are provided for this purpose. For all commodities, report the number of individual units,

such as bags, boxes, cans, foils, etc., not the number of containers in which multiple unit s are packed.

(9a) Amount on hand first of month. This amount must be the same as the previous month' s

"Physical inventory end of month (11b)." Include all foods held in storage by the SDA or reporting ITO.

(9b) Amount received. Indicate in this column the quantit y of individual units received in good

condition from USDA during the month.

(9c) Amount redonated in. Indicate the quantity of individual units redonated from another SDA,

program or ITO.

(9d) Total amount available during month. Enter the total of columns: (9a) amount on hand first

of month, (9b) amount received, and (9c) amount redonated out.

(10a) Amount issued. ITOs enter the total number of commodity units actually issued to and

accepted by participants during the report month as specified below . This figure should exclude (1) those

commodities not accepted by the participant at the time of food pick-up, and (2) any commodities returned

to the ITO by participants during the report month. If a participant has refused a commodity at pick-up, it

should not be considered issued. SDAs enter commodity units delivered to ITOs for distribution to program

participants.

(10b) Amount redonated out. When a commodit y is redonated to another SDA, program or ITO,

indicate the amount redonated.

(10c) Amount used for nutrition education. When a commodity is used for food demonstrations

or taste testing as part of the SDA' s or ITO' s nutrition education program, indicate the amount (in units)

used for this purpose.

(10d) Food loss. Provide the appropriate explanation code for all lost food. Enter the number of

commodities that are actualn food losses. These w ould include foods that: (A) after consignee receipt

w ere found to have concealed damage; (B) were damaged in the w arehouse or during transit from the

State warehouse to the local site; (C) were found to be out of condition or unfit for human consumption;

or (D) were known to have been stolen or lost due to fraud, misuse or embezzlement. Additional details

may be provided in the REMARKS section. (Attach additional pages if necessary.)

(10e) Total withdrawals. Enter the total of columns: (10a) issued to participant s, (10b) redonated

out, (10C) used for nutrition program, and (10d) lost.

(11a) Book inventory end of month. Column (9d) minus Column (10e).

(11b) Physical inventory end of month. Report total number of individual units for each commodit y

w hich a physical inventory determines to be in w arehouse.

(11c) Inventory Adjustments - Positive/Negative. Column (11a) minus/plus equal Column (11c).

12. Signature. The approving official signs the form heere to certify that a physical inventory

w as taken and that the report is true and accurate.

13. Title. Enter the approving official' s title.

14. Date. Enter he date the report is signed.

96

FORM FNS-152 INSTRUCTIONS