Public Comments

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

1627 I Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 800-771-2302
Fax: 312-263-5626
[email protected]
www.feedingamerica.org

October 13, 2023
Attention: Polly Fairfield
Food and Nutrition Service
United States Department of Agriculture
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
RE: Proposed Rule: Improving Access and Parity in Food Distribution Programs
Dear Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean and Administrator Cindy Long:
On behalf of Feeding America, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on USDA’s proposed rule on
Improving Access and Parity in Food Distribution Programs.
Feeding America is committed to an America where no one is hungry. We support tens of millions of
people who experience food insecurity to get the food and resources they say they need to thrive as
part of a nationwide network of food banks, statewide food bank associations, food pantries and meal
programs. We also invest in innovative solutions to increase equitable access to nutritious food,
advocate for legislation that improves food security and work to address factors that impact food
security, such as health, cost of living and employment.
USDA’s food distribution programs are central to the service of the Feeding America network. We
support opportunities to strengthen and streamline these programs to best serve people experiencing
food insecurity across the country.

1

STRUCTURE OF OUR COMMENT
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Why Feeding America Responded to This Proposed Rule ........................................................................ 3
Comments on Proposed Rule (by Program) ................................................................................................. 4
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)................................................................................... 4
Eligibility Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 4
Removal of Address Requirement ........................................................................................................ 5
Publicly Available Information .............................................................................................................. 6
Reporting on Participation .................................................................................................................... 6
Participant Confidentiality .................................................................................................................... 7
Rural, Remote and Tribal Expansion ..................................................................................................... 8
Technical Corrections ............................................................................................................................ 8
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) ..................................................................................... 8
Eligibility Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. 8
Categorical Eligibility ............................................................................................................................. 9
Identity Verification .............................................................................................................................. 9
Publicly Available Information ............................................................................................................ 10
Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program ......................................................................................... 11
Technical Corrections .......................................................................................................................... 11
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) ................................................................... 12
Urban Place Service ............................................................................................................................ 12
Waivers ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Deduction Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 12
Household and Dependent Status ...................................................................................................... 13
Food Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 13
Gross Income Eligibility and Data ....................................................................................................... 13
Technical Changes ............................................................................................................................... 14
USDA Foods in Disaster ........................................................................................................................... 14
USDA Foods and D-SNAP .................................................................................................................... 14
Reporting............................................................................................................................................. 14
Impact on Other Programs ................................................................................................................. 15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 15

2

Introduction
Why Feeding America Responded to This Proposed Rule
Feeding America responds to administrative rules and policy proposals when they
impact individuals experiencing food insecurity, food access for families and children, and food
banks’ ability to respond to hunger in their communities.
USDA food distribution programs are central to our work:

TEFAP: This program is a cornerstone of the Feeding America network’s food supply,
providing nearly 30% of the food distributed through network food banks and local
hunger-relief programs. In 2022, TEFAP enabled 192 participating network food banks to
serve over 1 billion meals.

CSFP: Older adults need nutritious foods to maintain good health. Feeding America
network food banks help meet the needs of over half a million seniors each year by
administering CSFP.

FDPIR: Feeding America works closely with Native partners to address hunger in tribal
communities. We glean from experts, including our colleagues at the Indigenous Food
and Agriculture Initiative, to inform our work in this space.

Disaster: Food banks are often the first responders against hunger when disaster
strikes. Feeding America network food banks can serve as primary distributors of USDA
foods and emergency supplies during hurricanes, wildfires, pandemics and other
declared disasters.
To inform our comment, the Feeding America national organization solicited feedback from
network members, people with experience accessing these programs, and other leading
national nonprofit organizations. We held network member listening sessions on each program
addressed by the rule, including TEFAP, CSFP, FDPIR and USDA foods in disaster. More than 150
people provided input during these sessions. We also collected feedback through monthly
network member webinars and one-on-one conversations with food banks. Additionally, we
gathered information through multiple network member surveys: one in November 2022, after
reviewing the regulatory agenda and in anticipation of a proposed rule for USDA commodities,
and another during this proposed rule’s 60-day comment period. Network members offered a
wealth of knowledge on opportunities to strengthen USDA food programs through
administrative rulemaking, based on decades of experience administering these programs as
well as new learnings from the pandemic era. To provide an additional, critical and sometimes
overlooked perspective, we also held a listening session with over 30 people who have accessed
food assistance programs. Their firsthand experiences also inform the content of our comment.

3

Comments on Proposed Rule (by Program)
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Eligibility Guidelines
Feeding America strongly supports USDA’s proposal to implement a federal minimum
income eligibility threshold for TEFAP at 185% of the federal poverty level. This
adaptation would help to modernize eligibility standards, placing minimum TEFAP
income eligibility thresholds in line with other federal nutrition programs, such as the
National School Lunch Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program.
This would help expand TEFAP access for more people and streamline program
administration within and across states. In a November 2022 Feeding America survey,
85% of responding network food banks stated that raising the TEFAP eligibility level was
needed to serve more people facing hunger through TEFAP in their state.
Additionally, we encourage USDA to explicitly require that categorical eligibility, in
addition to income thresholds, be employed by states to verify need. This mirrors a
similar current proposed rule change for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP) and would help increase access to and program administration alignment
between both programs. Network members and individuals with experience accessing
food assistance expressed the importance of streamlining eligibility and access, as much
as possible, across social programs.
We strongly oppose the implementation of a federal maximum threshold for TEFAP
income eligibility. We believe states should be able to set income eligibility guidelines
based on firsthand knowledge of their unique populations, the local cost of living,
resource management and other factors. Eight states1 with areas where the cost of
living is high have already received USDA approval for TEFAP eligibility above 250% of
the federal poverty level to best serve people facing hunger in their communities. We
are concerned that the proposed income eligibility ceiling of 250% of the federal
poverty level would:
•

•

1

Create additional undue administrative burden for eight states—those already
operating above 250% of the federal poverty level—to provide justification to
maintain their income eligibility thresholds. Food banks in some of these states
have expressed concern about the potential for such requests to be denied,
resulting in currently eligible individuals losing their food access.
Be a potential deterrent for states to adjust their income eligibility thresholds
above 250% in the future, due to added administrative burden (despite the
potential benefits for families with slightly higher earnings who are experiencing
food insecurity in states with areas where the cost of living is high).

Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

4

•

Open the door for denial of threshold adjustment requests. Justification
processes leave room for subjectivity, and administrations could interpret such
requests in a manner that denies states’ ability to do what works best for their
area.

If USDA determines there must be a ceiling, it should be no less than 400% of the
federal poverty level to be inclusive of all current state administrative practices and
best reflect the economic realities of people experiencing food insecurity. Due to the
uneven economic recovery from the pandemic, insufficient wage growth, fluctuating
rates of inflation and heightened costs of living in many areas, some states agree that a
400% limit is necessary to help families experiencing food insecurity access the food
they need. We strongly recommend that USDA retain the proposed option for state
agencies to submit a request to establish eligibility thresholds at a higher level, with
justification. This would allow states to continue to serve their residents as required by
the economic circumstances of their communities.
Additionally, we urge USDA to add to its final rule language that protects eligibility
thresholds submitted by states and approved by FNS. This would help maintain
consistency and reduce variation across administrations.

Removal of Address Requirement
Feeding America supports the proposed language to disallow the requirement that
individuals seeking assistance provide their address or identification to prove
residency. As noted in the proposed rule, there is no demonstrated need to require
participants to disclose their address, and requiring identification can be an
unnecessarily restrictive measure. As shared by individuals who have accessed food
assistance through TEFAP, this would be an especially positive program change for
people experiencing housing insecurity, and it would decrease concerns around privacy
and stigma. Eligible recipient agencies noted they would also benefit from this change,
as it would eliminate a lengthy administrative intake step, freeing up staff capacity and
helping to shorten long lines at food distributions.
Feeding America is committed to ensuring our work is data-driven, and many network
members use voluntarily provided residency indicators, like ZIP codes, to help inform
where food distributions are most needed. We support the language in the proposed
rule allowing for continued collection of residency indicators, voluntarily and not as a
precondition for participation, so network members can continue using such data to
inform their work.
Network members believe the final rule should remove geographic limitations on
service altogether. This change would be particularly helpful to food banks with
operations that cross multiple states or serve at state borders. It would also be
beneficial if eligible recipient agencies could serve people from different states. Another
major barrier that was repeatedly raised by individuals who have accessed food
5

assistance was restrictions on frequency of access (e.g., only being able to attend
distributions once per month). When surveyed, the majority of responding network
members stated that USDA should not allow states to implement TEFAP distribution
frequency restrictions. Many individuals with lived experience agreed that eliminating
distribution frequency limits would make it easier for people to access the food they
need.

Publicly Available Information
The proposed language would require state agencies to make TEFAP participant
eligibility criteria publicly available on a webpage. Feeding America supports making
participant eligibility information available on a public webpage to make the program
more transparent and accessible to people seeking food assistance.
Additionally, this proposal would require state agencies to annually post on a public
webpage a list of all eligible recipient agencies serving TEFAP foods and their contact
information. Network members support this provision’s intent to make the program
easier to access. However, the utility of such information would depend on its accuracy
and clarity. We want to ensure people do not receive information that could
unintentionally mislead them by directing them to eligible recipient agencies that have
limited operating hours or little staff capacity to answer calls. There was agreement
among network members and individuals who have accessed food assistance that it is of
the utmost importance that people access information that is fully up to date.
Therefore, we urge USDA to require states to list eligible recipient agencies with which
the state has an agreement as the main points of contact for the public, so that people
seeking assistance would be directed to organizations that have capacity to assist and
can provide them with the most accurate and useful information available.
We strongly request that USDA require state agencies to annually post on a public
webpage their current TEFAP state plan. This mirrors a current proposed rule change
for CSFP and would help bring transparency and parity to both programs. Ability to
access a state plan varies from state to state, and the information contained in each
plan is critical to ensure eligibility and operations information is known to providers and
participants. Requiring state agencies to post current TEFAP state plans would enhance
the charitable food system’s ability to meet the needs of people facing hunger.

Reporting on Participation
The proposed language requires state agencies to collect information on the number of
participants served by TEFAP and report it to the USDA on a quarterly basis. We support
USDA’s proposal to collect just one data point on TEFAP: the number of participants
served by the program. We strongly support aligning the timing of this report with
that of other required reporting from states to USDA.

6

We recognize this metric would require additional reporting from eligible recipient
agencies and state agencies. We urge USDA to consider aligning the timing of this report
with that of other required reporting from eligible recipient agencies to state agencies.
Alternatively, this metric could be collected via annual audit processes, which would
further reduce the reporting burden on eligible recipient agencies and state agencies,
while still providing USDA with helpful service metrics. Additionally, state-approved
electronic intake platforms, such as Service Insights on MealConnect, Link2Feed, Oasis
Insight and other platforms operating at eligible recipient agency distribution locations
are approved for the data collection and reporting required by this section. USDA has
encouraged the use of such platforms to improve data accuracy. Feeding America’s
Service Insights on MealConnect helps network food banks and local agency partners
collect basic information and manage program compliance at distributions to better
inform how and where they provide assistance. We encourage USDA to highlight
examples of how electronic intake platforms, like Service Insights on MealConnect, help
eligible recipient agencies and food banks report critical metrics to state agencies and
better serve their communities to encourage further buy-in from state agencies.

Participant Confidentiality
Privacy and confidentiality are of the utmost importance to the Feeding America
network and the people we serve, and we support the proposed efforts to ensure these
principles are upheld in TEFAP. The Service Insights on MealConnect platform was
designed with individuals’ privacy and data protections in mind. The platform
incorporates industry-standard technology and practices at every step of the process to
ensure data is being protected, including a privacy policy, terms of use, master license
agreement, end user license agreement, and data sharing acknowledgement. As part of
intake, each neighbor is asked if they agree or disagree to sharing their personal
information with third parties, such as healthcare and social service providers, for the
purpose of improving services and connecting them with additional services.
We encourage USDA to ensure confidentiality regulations are aligned with ongoing
best practices, including the use of state-approved electronic intake platforms. This
will allow network members to continue using electronic intake platforms, like Service
Insights on MealConnect, that benefit both food banks and the people they serve.
Additionally, network members request that USDA clarify through this rulemaking
process, including related guidance and policy memos interpreting the final rule
during implementation, that TEFAP distributors may continue using state-approved
electronic intake platforms, like Service Insights on MealConnect, to efficiently
administer TEFAP intake and distribute food to people in need. Feeding America’s
Service Insights on MealConnect is an electronic intake platform that allows network
food banks and local agencies to collect basic information and manage program
compliance at distributions to better inform how and where they provide assistance.
This platform is offered to network members free of cost, and 57 network food banks
and more than 1,000 agency partners use it.

7

Particularly for TEFAP, Service Insights on MealConnect helps network members collect
federally required information about program participants, such as name, residency
indicators and household size. In the past year, the platform has assisted nearly 650
TEFAP-serving sites recording over 2.2 million visits.

Rural, Remote and Tribal Expansion
USDA’s proposed language would encourage the implementation or expansion of TEFAP
distributions to rural, remote and tribal populations—the latter two groups are not
included in current regulations. Feeding America fully supports this proposal to expand
access to TEFAP in tribal communities and to historically underserved populations. We
support this proposed change, especially as it would align regulatory language with
that of TEFAP Reach and Resiliency grants.

Technical Corrections
The proposed language includes various technical corrections, which Feeding America
supports. We support updating the nondiscrimination language and ensuring that
sexual orientation and gender identity are acknowledged as protected classes in all
aspects of program implementation.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
Eligibility Guidelines
Feeding America supports the proposal to increase the maximum CSFP income
eligibility threshold to 185% of the federal poverty level. This proposal would help
more older adults access the food they need to thrive. Network members and
individuals who have accessed food assistance alike shared many instances in which,
under current regulations, older adults have been denied participation due to having
incomes slightly above the 130% eligibility threshold. Increasing the income eligibility
threshold to 185% also brings parity between the Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition
Program and CSFP. These programs complement nicely, providing fresh and shelf-stable
foods when accessed together for seniors experiencing food insecurity.
We also believe that states should be required to set their maximum income eligibility
threshold between 130% and 185% of the federal poverty level. Providing a range for
states would further bring parity between CSFP and TEFAP and help to ensure
consistency in access and resource management across states. A minimum income
eligibility threshold at 130% of the federal poverty level also aligns the CSFP minimum
access threshold with that of other federal nutrition programs, including SNAP and the
National School Lunch Program.
We recognize that increasing CSFP income eligibility thresholds may increase demand
for food. Policymakers should consider revising the caseload allocation methodology
8

alongside increases to eligibility thresholds to ensure waiting lists do not grow
drastically.

Categorical Eligibility
The proposed language requests comments on allowing CSFP applicants to be
categorically eligible for the program via participation in other federal means-tested
programs with income limits at or below the CSFP threshold.
Feeding America strongly supports implementing categorical eligibility in CSFP, while
maintaining the option to self-declare income. Allowing categorical eligibility for
participation in SNAP, FDPIR, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and other federal
programs would streamline the burdensome application process for older adults and
could reduce administrative work for state agencies. Including other programs that
support seniors with low incomes and do not use federal means-testing, such as the
Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP), could further increase access. USDA could also encourage states to
implement categorical eligibility for state-level means-tested programs.
Feeding America urges USDA to remove the requirement that federal means-tested
programs have income limits at or below the CSFP threshold to be considered for
categorical eligibility. Restricting categorical eligibility to other programs with those
criteria would exclude programs that serve households with low incomes using different
methods of determining eligibility. For example, the Housing Choice Voucher Program
requires that families have incomes less than or equal to 50% of the median income for
the area in which the family lives. LIHEAP eligibility thresholds allow participants to have
an income up to 60% of the state median income level. Both programs serve older
adults who have low incomes, but they would not be considered for categorical
eligibility for CSFP under the proposed federal means-tested income limits language. We
encourage the USDA to model the CSFP categorical eligibility regulations after the
National School Lunch Program language, which confers eligibility based on
participation in other programs without reference to the income limits of other
programs, including TANF programs, which have higher income thresholds.

Identity Verification
While this provision would make it easier for participants to prove their identity, a
requirement to provide some form of identification makes CSFP delivery partnerships
more difficult to implement, reducing efficiency and delivery program reach. Network
members and individuals who have experience accessing food assistance expressed
support for completely removing identity verification as a requirement to fully
eliminate this barrier to access.

9

Should USDA determine identity verification must be required, Feeding America
supports the proposed provision to allow CSFP state and local agencies to establish
additional methods of verifying the identity of participants when receiving food
packages. Flexible verification methods could reduce barriers to access for many older
adults, including those with limited or no ability to obtain traditional forms of
identification. Individuals who have accessed food assistance shared anecdotes of being
denied service due to improper identification and strongly supported this effort to
create needed flexibility in such verification processes. Additional identity verification
methods could also help reduce the burden on eligible recipient agencies and help
ensure efficient distributions. We encourage USDA to provide examples of alternative
materials that can be used to verify identity to clarify options for people accessing the
program. Such materials could include health care cards, a library card, official mail or
other documentation that indicates identity.

Publicly Available Information
Proposed language would require state agencies to annually post on a public webpage a
list of all eligible recipient agencies serving CSFP food boxes. Feeding America supports
this provision’s intent to make the program easier to access. However, the utility of such
information would depend on its accuracy and clarity. We want to ensure people do not
receive information that could unintentionally mislead them by directing them to
eligible recipient agencies that have limited operating hours, no capacity to answer calls
or full caseloads. There was agreement among network members and individuals who
have accessed food assistance that it is of the utmost importance that people access
information that is fully up to date. Therefore, we urge USDA to require states to list
eligible recipient agencies with which the state has an agreement as the main points
of contact for the public, so that people seeking assistance would be directed to
organizations that have capacity to assist and can provide them with the most
accurate and useful information available.
Feeding America strongly supports the proposal to make state plans publicly available
on state agency webpages. Additionally, we encourage USDA to require state agencies
to make publicly available on a webpage participant eligibility information. This mirrors
a similar current proposed rule change for TEFAP and would help bring transparency
and parity to both programs.
Given that many older adults have limited digital fluency, Feeding America suggests
that USDA also encourage state agencies to make information about eligibility
requirements and eligible recipient agencies available in physical form via mail or at
places that seniors experiencing food insecurity already visit, such as congregate meal
sites and food pantries. Doing so could help connect more individuals to CSFP, and this
idea was raised specifically by older adults who have accessed food assistance.

10

Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program
The proposed language requires that local agencies share written information and
referrals to the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) where applicable.
Feeding America supports this provision because many CSFP participants are also
eligible for SFMNP; this would be especially pertinent should USDA implement a CSFP
income eligibility threshold that mirrors that of SFMNP at 185% of the federal poverty
level. Ensuring CSFP participants are aware of SFMNP and how to enroll in the program
could help further address senior food insecurity and provide CSFP participants with
access to fresh produce, which is not available through CSFP. We encourage USDA to
explore expanding this provision to include information about and referrals to other
programs for older adults with low incomes, such as the Older Americans Act nutrition
services, housing services, such as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and LIHEAP.

Technical Corrections
The proposed language includes various technical corrections, which Feeding America
has no concerns with. We support removing outdated references to WIC. We also
support preserving income exclusions based on WIC, as doing so would maintain
existing CSFP access and prevent a cascade of income reevaluations that would be
burdensome for program participants and administrators. Additionally, we support
updating the nondiscrimination language and ensuring that sexual orientation and
gender identity are acknowledged as protected classes in all aspects of program
implementation.
Feeding America also requests a technical change, impacting the FNS-191 form, to
allow program participants to indicate "prefer not to say" or to select a category of
"other" if they feel the race and ethnicity options provided do not fully represent their
identity. Network members specifically shared that the requirement to mark a race or
ethnicity, even if the participant does not self-identify with one of the available options,
can be an obstacle in CSFP. Visual observation of race and ethnicity was removed from
some other nutrition programs through USDA’s policy memo: Collection of Race and
Ethnicity Data by Visual Observation and Identification in the Child and Adult Care Food
Program and Summer Food Service Program – Policy Rescission (May 17, 2021).
Appropriate updates through regulation or guidance for this practice in CSFP would be
beneficial for staff and/or volunteers helping to run local programs. We recognize the
importance of collecting demographic data to address the unique needs of specific
communities, and CSFP agencies should continue explaining the importance of this data
to participants as they encourage them to self-identify and self-report.

11

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
Urban Place Service
The proposed rule states that any urban place outside of the reservation boundaries
may be served by the Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) without justification. Feeding
America supports this proposal, and we encourage USDA to retain the language "may
be served" instead of "must be," to allow ITOs to make the most informed and
effective distribution decisions based on their unique communities.
As a result of historical federal policies, enrolled citizens and descendants of tribes
across the country may live in urban areas outside the reservation. Yet, they still face
challenges in securing stable, nutritious foods and have difficulty in obtaining FDPIR
services despite living in a tribe’s FNS service area. This proposed change would allow
ITOs to serve tribal citizens in urban areas without the administrative burden of
requesting and justifying the need. Removing this barrier would reflect the
contemporary living situations of tribal members and descendants, and such action is
necessary to meet their needs.

Waivers
The proposed rule would allow FNS to waive or modify specific regulatory requirements
for ITOs in certain situations.
Feeding America encourages USDA to continue seeking programmatic flexibility that
respects tribal sovereignty in programs. Waiver authority has been used across
numerous federal departments to break through bureaucratic and regulatory barriers,
helping tribes and their federal partners be more responsive to the unique needs of
tribal citizens on a tribe-by-tribe basis.
Feeding America supports this provision, as it would give ITOs authority and flexibility
to apply to FNS for waivers to regulatory requirements to help ensure programs are
best serving their communities. We encourage USDA to mirror existing SNAP waiver
authority for FDPIR (EO 13175) to ensure parity between the programs. USDA should
continue dialogue with tribal leaders to determine the conditions under which a tribe
might be granted a waiver.

Deduction Calculation
The proposed rule would allow for the FDPIR shelter and utility standard deductions to
be increased to the level of the SNAP maximum deduction, and for the use of actual
expenses to calculate the deductions.
Regional and state program calculations do not always account for the distinct
conditions present on tribal reservations and in Alaska Native village jurisdictions. State
SNAP calculations often fail to incorporate the increased costs of living and
12

transportation in geographically remote reservations, the lack of available vendors to
service these areas, and the challenge for participants to reach distribution points
without reliable transportation.
Feeding America supports the proposed language and increased flexibility in counting
deductions. This would provide parity with SNAP, which the National Association for
FDPIR and tribal leaders note would help more tribal citizens access FDPIR.

Household and Dependent Status
The proposed rule would allow for separated household status to be granted to
separated spouses who are living apart. Through this regulation, requirements for
determining parental control of minor children would mimic SNAP regulations.
This provision would allow for greater flexibility for tribal families who, due to various
circumstances, live in separate households and have previously been denied separate
access to the program in a way that will help feed their whole family. Maintaining parity
between SNAP and FDPIR requirements would help participants have a more seamless
opportunity to transition between the programs through commonly held verification
standards, and Feeding America supports this proposed rule change.

Food Assessment
This proposed provision would require FNS to periodically assess how USDA foods
provided through FDPIR compare to federal dietary guidelines and to adjust food
package contents to ensure they are consistent with basic dietary needs.
We applaud USDA for incorporating feedback from ITOs through regular consultation to
incorporate more nutritious, culturally preferred foods for American Indian and Alaska
Native participants.
Feeding America supports this proposal, while also continuing to promote ad-hoc
flexibility for the FDPIR Work Group. We encourage USDA to ensure that this provision
promotes reviews on an as-needed basis, with no limitations to how often they can
occur. This provision would also clearly prohibit the FDPIR package benefit from being
reduced through review and analysis, meaning participants would not be at risk of losing
food—a proposal that Feeding America strongly supports. We also encourage USDA to
increase parity between FDPIR and SNAP by ensuring any adjustments to SNAP benefit
calculation methods are accompanied by adjustments to FDPIR food package
amounts.

Gross Income Eligibility and Data
Through this proposed rule, USDA is requesting public comment on whether there are
data sources that should be considered when establishing income guidelines for FDPIR,

13

and/or whether USDA should consider use of a gross income eligibility requirement
without deductions.
Feeding America would like to uplift the position of our Native partners, namely our
colleagues at the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative, who expressed that one of
the main challenges in securing full program participation is the need for staff and
administrative time to navigate federal participation guidelines. They shared that ITOs
operate on minimal budgets, resulting in limited administrative staff capacity to meet
the needs of eligible participants. Using eligibility criteria that accept gross income
without deductions would simplify the process for many ITOs. Feeding America supports
the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative’s suggestion that localized guidelines may
better reflect the income eligibility situation for program participants.

Technical Changes
The proposed language includes various technical corrections, which Feeding America
supports. We support updating the nondiscrimination language and ensuring that
sexual orientation and gender identity are acknowledged as protected classes in all
aspects of program implementation.

USDA Foods in Disaster
USDA Foods and D-SNAP
The proposed language would allow for the simultaneous provision of Disaster SNAP
(D-SNAP) and USDA foods in disaster response, which is currently prohibited by
federal regulation. Feeding America strongly supports this provision.
It is beneficial to allow various avenues of food access for people experiencing food
insecurity, especially during times of disaster. Network members—particularly those
who serve areas that face disasters more frequently—noted that a person’s ability to
access grocery stores or food distributions might vary based on the type of emergency,
and that some people may need to access both avenues given the intensity of a
disaster’s impact. Both types of access can and should be available to any person facing
food insecurity, and Feeding America supports USDA’s proposed language.

Reporting
The proposed language would require state distributing agencies operating a disaster
household distribution past 14 calendar days to submit a weekly report to FNS on the
number of individuals served and on the amount of USDA foods issued. The change
from the current 45-day threshold to 14 days would create additional administrative
burden for states during times of already heightened administrative burden. The
estimated calculation of additional burden included in the proposed rule language does
not account for administrative burden eligible recipient agencies and food banks might
14

face to help gather such information. We urge USDA to consider utilizing the data of
other, on-the-ground sources (such as FEMA) to collect this additional information
during times of duress.

Impact on Other Programs
We support the proposed language related to limiting impact on other programs.
USDA's effort to better understand when USDA foods are being used in disaster
response and replace them, so as not to reduce the amount of USDA foods available in
other programs, has direct benefits to the people served by the Feeding America
network. When deciding whether disaster response activities may negatively impact
the distribution of foods through other programs, it is critical that the preferences of
distributing agencies like food banks be a top priority. Local eligible recipient agencies
are in the best position to evaluate the severity and scope of a disaster impact,
allocating TEFAP resources in a way that best addresses the unique needs of the people
impacted by a disaster and the needs of individuals experiencing food insecurity outside
of the disaster area. Sometimes, eligible recipient agencies may need to prioritize
disaster distributions to serve their community most effectively.

Conclusion
Feeding America appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule on Improving Access
and Parity in Food Distribution Programs. We thank USDA for taking this opportunity to strengthen
these programs to more efficiently, effectively and equitably serve people experiencing food insecurity.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Vince Hall
Chief Government Relations Officer
Feeding America

15