MAZON Comments USDA FNS proposed rule for food distribution programs 10.13.23.FINAL

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

Download: pdf

Submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov
October 13, 2023
Gregory Walton
Program Analyst
Food Distribution Policy Branch, Supplemental Nutrition and Safety
Programs U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service
1320 Braddock Place, 3rd Floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Re: Comments on USDA Food and Nutrition Service Food Distribution
Programs: Improving Access and Parity
Proposed Rule: RIN Number 0584–AE92, Document ID: FNS-2023-0026
Dear Mr. Walton:
On behalf of MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, I am writing
today regarding the USDA Food and Nutrition Service request for
input on the proposed rule to amend regulations to make access and
parity improvements within several food distribution programs
including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and USDA Foods in
Disasters Program.
MAZON applauds USDA for taking this opportunity to improve access
and parity in the food distribution programs through regulatory
updates based on insights and lessons learned during the COVID-19
pandemic. The pandemic had a significant impact on the nation’s food
system and economy, and it created unprecedented levels of hunger,1
exposing gaps in federal and farm programs, overwhelming the
emergency food network, and straining Tribal governments when
COVID relief funds were delayed.2 Improving access and parity in
USDA food distribution programs through this rulemaking can have a
meaningful impact in achieving more equitable food and nutrition
security for millions of vulnerable Americans.

1

Keith-Jennings, Brynne, et al. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Number of Families Struggling to Afford Food Rose Steeply in
Pandemic and Remains High, Especially Among Children and Households of Color (2021).
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/number-of-families-struggling-to-afford-food-rose-steeply-in-pandemic-and
2
Government Accountability Office. (2013). COVID Relief Funds: Lessons Learned Could Improve Future Distribution of Federal
Emergency Relief to Tribal Recipients. (GAO Publication No. 23-105473). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office

Inspired by Jewish values and ideals, MAZON is a national advocacy
organization working to end hunger among people of all faiths and
backgrounds in the United States and Israel. For nearly 40 years,
MAZON has been committed to ensuring that everyone has equitable
access to the resources they need to be able to put nutritious and
culturally relevant food on the table. MAZON is a leading voice on
anti-hunger issues, particularly for populations or on issues that have
been previously overlooked or under-addressed — this includes food
insecurity among military families, veterans, single mothers, college
students, the people of Puerto Rico, Native Americans and Indigenous
communities, and LGBTQ+ older adults. It is with this experience that
we focus our comments around vulnerable populations so that
eligible participants can more easily and equitably access these food
programs, and so that requirements for program operators are
streamlined.
Tribal Nations and Indigenous Communities
An important piece of MAZON’s work focuses on strengthening and
improving federal nutrition assistance programs in Indian Country so
that Tribal communities can sustain and nurture themselves with safe,
affordable, nutritious, accessible, and culturally-appropriate food.
MAZON’s support of Native-led policy change to advance food security
and food sovereignty in Indian Country is rooted in the recognition
that Tribal Nations are sovereign and entitled to Tribal
self-determination. By partnering with Native advocates and
communities to advance Native-led change and food sovereignty,
MAZON works to strengthen Indian Country food systems and
improve access to healthy and traditional foods.
In our role as a founding non-Native ally member of the Native Farm
Bill Coalition, MAZON staff have attended USDA Tribal Consultations
on FDPIR regularly for the last several years. We have witnessed the
tireless advocacy of Tribal leaders across multiple Tribal government
and U.S. presidential administrations, so it is gratifying that several of
USDA’s proposals reflect Tribal leadership’s input during
Consultations. The Tribal Leaders Consultation Working Group
(TLCWG) and USDA have made much progress on many issues, some
of which have been in the works for many years. The following
comments are meant to reflect the years of advocacy by Tribal
leaders, the TLCWG, and ITO staff working with USDA.

2

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
1. USDA Proposal: Increase the maximum CSFP income eligibility
standards at 150% of the federal poverty level while requesting public
comment on a standard of 185%.
While a limited number of Tribal organizations operate Commodity
Supplemental Food Programs (CSFP), increasing eligibility guidelines
to match the challenging socio-economic circumstances in certain
parts of Indian Country is a positive adjustment. Similar to challenges
in using national and regional data in determining eligibility for FDPIR,
the current CSFP income guidelines of 130% of the federal poverty
level often do not capture the economic situation on the ground in
remote, geographically isolated Tribal jurisdictions.
These circumstances are why we also support FNS’s approach at
opening comment to raising the standard to 185% of the federal
poverty level. Many Tribal jurisdictions are situated in economically
challenged parts of the country, and elders there live in circumstances
distinctly different from their counterparts in suburban and urban
communities. We welcome this opportunity to comment and
hopefully increase the income guideline in hopes of assisting more
eligible participants.
2. USDA Proposal: Requesting public comment about allowing CSFP
applicants to be eligible via participation in other federal
means-tested programs with income limits at or below those of CSFP.
As noted above, a limited number of Tribes and Indian Tribal
Organizations (ITOs) operate CSFP. Many of those who do also
manage other federal means-tested programs with eligibility
guidelines similar to those of CSFP. In practicality, that means
program staff working with these populations often face duplicative
tasks in verifying eligibility. For many ITOs, staff and administrative
capabilities are limited at the best of times. Simply put, they do not
have the technical infrastructure, financial means, and personnel to
carry out overly burdensome and duplicative paperwork compared to
their state counterparts.

3

We welcome any opportunity to streamline this process for CSFP ITO
program staff by using eligibility data that matches CSFP to keep
elders fed.
3. USDA Proposal: CSFP state and local agencies may establish other
methods of verifying the identity of participants when receiving a food
package.
Although CSFP is a federal program, Tribes operate in a distinctly
different legal, jurisdictional, and practical environment than their
state and local counterparts. Allowing Tribes the option to use their
own culturally relative methods of identity verification, such as
through Tribal identification cards or Certificate of Degree of Indian
Blood (CDIB) respects Tribal sovereignty and supports the efficient
management of the program.
4. USDA Proposal: CSFP state agencies are required to annually post a
list of all local agencies and recipient agencies on a public website, as
well as making the current state plan available on a public website.
This reflects current practices and potentially increases awareness of
the program, and we have no problem with this being added as a
requirement. Many ITOs already have websites or social media
accounts where this information is listed, so the requirement of listing
local and recipient agencies online should not be an undue burden on
ITOs. However, we offer an additional recommendation: states should
be required to include ITOs offering CSFP in their annual online
listings or promotional materials so that any Tribal citizen who visits
the state website will see that a Tribe is offering the program as well.
Tribal citizens may feel more comfortable connecting with a Tribal
CSFP, which would support the goal of increasing access to this critical
program.
Additionally, although we know the regulatory definition of “state
agency” includes ITOs, when dialoguing about these programs or
writing prefatory language to proposed regulations, as here, we urge
USDA to always explicitly include a call-out for Tribal Nations or ITOs.
For example, here, USDA has written: “The Department proposes
adding a new provision at § 247.5(b)(16), which would require state
agencies to make publicly available a list of all CSFP distribution sites,
including both local agencies and agencies operating under an

4

agreement with a local agency.” Small changes here can make a big
difference with Tribes and Tribal citizens understanding that they are
eligible to access and operate this program. We suggest revising this
section to reflect that “The Department proposes adding a new
provision at § 247.5(b)(16), which would require state agencies,
including Indian Tribal Organizations, to make publicly available a
list of all CSFP distribution sites, including both local agencies and
agencies operating under an agreement with a local agency.”
This is a small change in language that increases awareness that
Tribes can and do operate this program, not only to potential Tribal
elders in need of services and support, but also to Tribal Nations that
do not currently operate the program. It is challenging for Tribes to
see themselves as eligible to administer these critical programs when
the language used to describe administrators is entirely state-based.
Again, we understand that the regulatory definition of a state agency
does include Tribes and that it would likely take an act of Congress to
separate the two for the purposes of the regulation, but where there
are opportunities for Tribes to be called out as well, we urge USDA to
take that step in communications.
5. USDA Proposal: Where applicable, local agencies must share written
information and referrals to the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition
Program (SFMNP) to expand awareness and access to the program.
Many ITOs already manage or partner with SFMNP in their areas, and
this proposal would not be considered overly burdensome on their
existing work. However, there remain instances of non-Tribal local and
state agencies who operate in the general vicinity of ITOs without
knowing the former exist. We suggest that the FNS regional Tribal
liaisons in each region support Tribal Nations by providing periodic
updates on other CSFP or SFMNP program operators in the area.
6. USDA Proposal: Technical corrections in language, titles, and other
items.
Finally, we welcome the proposed changes that replace outdated
terminology, such as “commodities” and “elderly” in regulatory
language. In those, and other suggested proposals removing
cross-citations to women, infants, and children receiving CSFP

5

benefits as they are no longer a part of the program in the technical
corrections, we see no additional need for input.
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
1. USDA Proposal: Remove the current definition of ‘urban place’ and
allow ITOs to service urban places outside of reservations without
submitting a request and justification.
This proposal comes from input by Tribal leaders during
Nation-to-Nation Consultations with FNS leadership and we welcome
its inclusion, as it reflects nearly a decade of dialogue between FNS
and Tribal leaders. As a result of historic 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 they often have difficulty in
obtaining FDPIR services despite living in a Tribe’s FNS service area.
The proposed change allows ITOs to serve Tribal citizens in urban
areas without the administrative burden of requesting and justifying
the need. Removing this barrier reflects the contemporary living
situations of Tribal members and descendants and is necessary to
meet their needs.
We do offer one cautionary recommendation, which was also offered
by some Tribal leaders during consultation on this issue. USDA must
include language in this updated regulation that makes it clear an ITO
has the option to serve these urban places if the ITO so chooses, but
that it is not a requirement. It should not be a mandatory requirement
on any ITO to offer FDPIR to these areas given the limitations many
have in personnel, administrative, and transportation capabilities. This
small change preserves Tribal sovereignty in offering this program
and eliminates a burdensome and needless administrative
requirement at the same time.
2. USDA Proposal: Adding a waiver capability allowing FNS to waive or
modify specific regulatory requirements for ITOs in certain situations.
MAZON urges USDA to heed the longstanding Tribal leadership
feedback to add a waiver capability that honors the broad waiver
language of Executive Order 13175 in updates to the rule.

6

The need for more programmatic flexibility that respects Tribal
sovereignty in offering these programs has also been a repeated topic
at Nation-to-Nation consultation between FNS and Tribal leaders. As
Tribal leaders have pointed out in consultations, when these
programs were originally designed, it was often without robust input
— or indeed, any input — from Tribal Nations, and offering them
today in the Nation-to-Nation era often poses challenges as a result.
Waiver authority has been used across numerous federal
departments to break through bureaucratic and regulatory barriers in
order to help Tribes and their federal partners be more responsive to
the unique needs of Tribal citizens on a Tribe-by-Tribe basis. Tribal
leaders have previously proposed that FNS honor the broad waiver
language of Executive Order 13175, which applies to all federal
departments and would enable waiver of discretionary provisions in
programs. So far, Tribal requests to apply that existing waiver
language to specific FDPIR programmatic circumstances has not been
met with approval. FNS has been reluctant to utilize this language. It
seems that the waiver language proposed here is an attempt at
compromise.
To the extent that this waiver language offers more flexibility than
exists currently and establishes a process for providing that flexibility,
this is a positive proposal. This waiver language also brings FDPIR
waiver circumstances in line with SNAP, which has also been a goal of
Tribal leaders’ as expressed in Nation-to-Nation consultation with
USDA. However, the proposed language here is much less broad than
Tribal leaders have requested. We also have concerns about the
nature of the documentation USDA would expect a Tribe to provide
when making a request and providing a “compelling reason” for a
proposed change. For Tribal Nations, the exercise of our sovereignty
is the only compelling reason needed; reasons beyond that are merely
creating burdensome paperwork and administrative processes for
both Tribes and USDA alike.
More dialogue is likely needed in consultation on this issue with USDA,
especially around the conditions under which a Tribe might be
granted a waiver. Broad waiver authority like that already existing in
EO 13175 both honors sovereignty and enables quick adaptation to
unknown future needs. Before 2020, no one envisioned the
circumstances brought on by the COVID pandemic. Programs without
flexibility were greatly disadvantaged and the most vulnerable

7

populations suffered. We must build flexibility into programs so that
they may continue to operate effectively, even during times of
unforeseen circumstances.
3. USDA Proposal: Increasing FDPIR shelter and utility standard
deductions to SNAP maximum deduction levels and allowing FDPIR
households to use actual expenses to calculate the deductions.
This is a much-needed change, and another that comes directly from
the Tribal Leaders Consultation Work Group that sits in consultation
with FNS three times a year to address challenges within the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. As mentioned above,
too often regional and state-focused program calculations fail to
consider the distinct conditions present on Tribal reservations and
Alaska Native village jurisdictions. State SNAP calculations often fail to
incorporate the increased costs of living and 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.
Tribal leaders most recently noted that FDPIR participants have
essentially been punished with lower levels of support compared to
their SNAP counterparts because inflation adjustments to the
Standard Utility Allowance were not given to FDPIR participants.3 This
change to the deduction calculation will increase FDPIR access for
Tribal citizens and begins to acknowledge and take into account the
varying circumstances in many Tribal communities. This sentiment
has been echoed by many ITO staff and it is good to see USDA
listening to what Tribal leaders raise in consultation in affirmation of
the Nation-to-Nation relationship that we share.
4. USDA Proposal: Mirroring SNAP regulations by granting separated
spouses living apart the ‘separated household status’ and matching
SNAP requirements determining parental control of minor children.
This is another much needed change that has come from
consultations. This will allow for greater flexibility for Tribal families
who — for whatever circumstances — live in separate households and
3

Meeting Minutes From Tribal Leaders Consultation Working Group Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, (Aug. 2,

2022)(on file with IFAI).

8

who have previously been denied the ‘separated household status’
because one is a FDPIR participant. In other instances, only heads of
households could make a request to have a child removed from SNAP
participation, essentially barring enrollment in FDPIR even if they were
no longer in the SNAP-receiving household.4 By again keeping SNAP
and FDPIR requirements in parity, participants have a more seamless
opportunity to migrate from either program through commonly held
verification standards.
5. USDA Proposal: Institution of periodic assessments of USDA Foods
in FDPIR packages to Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and
adjustment of its contents consistent with basic dietary needs.
FNS’s cooperation with the FDPIR Food Package Work Group is
another example of successful collaboration between the agency, its
partners and ITO staff distributing these packages to participants. By
hearing from ITO staff on the frontlines of this work, the Department
has made progress in incorporating more nutritious and, on occasion,
culturally-appropriate foods for American Indian and Alaska Native
participants. Tribal leaders from the FPDIR Working group encourage
FNS and its federal partners to streamline the process of adding new
food package items in a timely manner when responding to requests
arising from Tribal dietary needs and preferences.5 We applaud FNS’
clear statement in the proposed rule language noting these periodic
assessments will not be used to reduce or to eliminate items or
quantities without ITO support.
Finally, echoing requests from Tribal leaders, we call on FNS to extend
parity provisions from SNAP to FDPIR when the latter is increased.
During the pandemic, food package quantities failed to keep pace
with the expansion of SNAP benefits.6 This cannot be allowed to take
place in the future, especially in times of national emergencies. USDA
could require any increase or decrease in SNAP benefits to
immediately trigger FDPIR package review. Tribal leaders have asked
for this before, and it would support greater parity between the
programs.
4

Meeting Minutes From Tribal Leaders Consultation Working Group Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, (Aug.
11, 2021) (on file with IFAI).
5
Meeting Minutes From Tribal Leaders Consultation Working Group Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, (June 27,
2023) (on file with IFAI).
6
Meeting Minutes From Tribal Leaders Consultation Working Group Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, (Dec. 6,
2023) (on file with IFAI).

9

6. USDA Proposal: Exploring other income guidelines and data sources
for FDPIR participation outside of information from U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) and FNS resources.
HHS and FNS income guidelines based on national and regional
standards do not always accurately reflect the situations of those
living in Indian Country. FNS should simplify this process by providing
an alternate calculation for determining eligibility. USDA should allow
applicants to qualify using either of the following formulas to
determine FDPIR eligibility: (1) increased gross income guidelines,
without deductions, or (2) current guidelines that include increased
shelter and utility cost deductions.
7. USDA Proposal: Exploring making FNS use gross income guidelines
without deductions in income eligibility determinations.
As repeated through the years of consultations, one of the main
challenges in securing full program participation is staff and
administrative time in appropriately navigating federal participation
guidelines in these programs. Many ITOs operate on razor thin
margins, having minimal administrative staff capabilities compared to
the needs of eligible participants. Using eligibility criteria that accepts
gross income guidelines without deductions would simplify the
process for many ITO staff who have noted that localized guidelines —
down to the Tribal level, or at least, county level — will better reflect
the income eligibility situation for program participants.
8. USDA Proposal: Requesting public comment from ITOs on whether
administrative funding methodology meets their needs to run the
programs, how it can be improved, and how effective the regional
allocation and budget negotiation process is. Also requesting
comment on whether another model would better serve ITOs.
Tribal leaders and ITO staff who operate programs in the food and
nutrition space always welcome the opportunity to comment on
programmatic updates that may improve their delivery. As mentioned
above, ITO staff are often limited in time and resources. Regional
allocation and budget negotiations simply do not capture the full
scope of challenges ITOs deal with compared to state counterparts
operating SNAP.

10

MAZON’s partners at the National Association of Food Distribution
Programs on Indian Reservations (NAFDPIR) recently conducted a
membership survey of ITOs on this issue. Responses were varied, with
some ITOs indicating that the current structure meets needs, while
many others shared that the current administrative funding
methodology is lacking and needs to be adjusted. Proposals for how
to do so varied but included calls for increased flexibility with
administrative funds used to operate the programs. Given the varied
responses and unique needs of each Tribe, USDA should work with
NAFDPIR to seat a working group on this issue, following a similar
process to that used in 2008.
Additionally, we share the sentiments of Tribal leaders’ longtime calls
for better overall Tribal inclusion into the USDA annual budget
negotiation process, a framework that has long existed at other
federal departments. This would not just support better, more
harmonious partnerships between ITOs and USDA, but would support
Tribes as a whole in accessing USDA authorities and helping to ensure
that USDA upholds its federal trust responsibility. Giving Tribes the
ability to help shape these programs in partnership with USDA would
go a long way to supporting their success before agency
appropriations requests begin for each fiscal year.
9. USDA Proposal: Technical corrections in language, titles and other
items.
Finally, we welcome the proposed changes that replace outdated
terminology, such as “commodities” and “food stamps” in regulatory
language. In those, and other suggested proposals in the technical
correction, we see no additional need for input.
In summary, the FNS proposals contain positive changes, not just for
FDPIR. They show thoughtfulness in considering the processes that
challenge and impact ITOs using these programs, and that have been
the basis of feedback from Tribal leaders at Consultations for several
years now. By further incorporating the suggestions above, we believe
progress in program delivery can only improve.

11

Older Adults including LGBTQ+ Older Adults
For decades, MAZON has been concerned about the growing hunger
crisis among older adults in the U.S. One in five Americans are
projected to be 65 or older by 2030;7 more than 16.5 million seniors
will find themselves economically insecure8 with fewer pensions and
inadequate retirement benefits. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
older adults aged 65 and over experienced a concerning increase in
poverty between 2020 and 2021, with one million more seniors
plunged into poverty.9 For people aged 60 and over, nearly 5.5 million
— 1 in 14 — experienced food insecurity.10
Acutely aware that LGBTQ+ older adults experience high rates of food
insecurity, MAZON has prioritized advocacy efforts for this uniquely
vulnerable population. Among food insecure older adults, LGBTQ+
individuals are as much as 60% more likely to experience food
insecurity than their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts.11 Many of the reasons
for the disturbingly high levels of food insecurity include systemic and
historically persistent discrimination, victimization, and social
isolation. This in turn has meant exclusion from resources typically
available to others as they age, including traditional retirement
resources.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
In the context of the vulnerabilities outlined above, MAZON offers the
following comments on the USDA proposed revisions to CSFP
regulations to achieve greater parity and improve access to CSFP for
older adults.
1. MAZON supports USDA’s proposal to increase the maximum
income eligibility threshold from 130% of the federal poverty level to
150% to help bridge the gap between the number of older adults

7

Vespa, Jonathan, Lauren Medina, and David M. Armstrong, “Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population
Projections for 2020 to 2060,” Current Population Reports, P25-1144, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2020.
8
U.S. Census Bureau. POV-01. Age and Sex of All People, Family Members, and Unrelated Individuals, 2021. Found on the
internet at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-pov/pov-01.html.
9
John Creamer, Emily A. Shrider, Kalee Burns, and Frances Chen, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-277,
Poverty in the United States: 2021, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, September 2022.
10
Gundersen, C. & Ziliak, J. (2023). The State of Senior Hunger in 2021. Report submitted to Feeding America.
11
Brown, Taylor N.T., Romero, Adam P., Gates, Gary J. (2016). Food Insecurity and SNAP Participation in the LGBT Community.
Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

12

served and the total eligible caseload population nationwide. We
understand that USDA recommends the 150% level without a medical
deduction to simplify program administration for both applicants and
local agencies.
Regarding USDA’s request for public comment on a preference
between the current proposal to increase CSFP's maximum income
eligibility guidelines to 150% of the federal poverty level or an
alternate level of 185% of the federal poverty level, MAZON urges
USDA to implement the 185% level. This would bring CSFP into parity
with the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) eligibility
guidelines, and it would recognize the disproportionate health and
economic impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on older
adults.12
2. MAZON supports a future change to allow states and Tribal
agencies to accept participation in other Federal means-tested
programs such as SNAP, FDPIR, and SSI to determine eligibility for
CSFP. This change has the potential to expand access to eligible
older adults not currently participating in CSFP.
In addition, we recommend that all USDA feeding programs, as well
as Social Security, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid be included in
determining categorical eligibility.
3. MAZON supports USDA in adding an option for state and Tribal
agencies to have the flexibility to include state means-tested
programs to determine eligibility for CSFP in addition to Federal
means-tested programs. We believe this option would advance
USDA’s goal to improve and increase access and parity to CSFP for
more older adults in need.
4. MAZON agrees that state and Tribal agencies should be allowed the
flexibility for alternative methods of identity verification for CSFP.
5. MAZON agrees that CSFP state and Tribal agencies should be
required to annually post a list of all local agencies and recipient

12

Nikitra Bailey and Ashley Barrington, “The Economic Impact of the Pandemic on Older Adults,” American Society on Aging
Generations Journal, Spring 2022,
https://generations.asaging.org/economic-impact-pandemic-older-adults#:~:text=The%20pandemic%20also%20exacerbated%20
the,income%20for%20rent%20and%20utilities. (accessed October 12, 2023).

13

agencies on a public website, as well as making the current state
plan available on a public website.
6. MAZON supports that where applicable, local agencies must share
written information and referrals to the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition Program (SFMNP) with applicants. This would increase
awareness and access to other senior nutrition assistance programs
relevant to CSFP participants.
7. MAZON agrees with USDA’s updates to language including replacing
the outdated term “commodities'' with “USDA Foods,”
removing references to “elderly” and replacing “elderly” with
“participants” as the program is now seniors only, and removing
cross-citations to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) regulations as CSFP is now
seniors only.
8. MAZON agrees with the USDA proposal to update § 247.37(a) to
advise the public that CSFP must be operated in accordance with the
most up-to-date USDA nondiscrimination statement. The proposed
change to § 247.37(a) would align the regulations with the
nondiscrimination statement if it changes in the future.
All Populations
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
MAZON appreciates the critical lifeline that TEFAP provided during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and has the following comments on USDA’s
proposals to increase parity and access to the program.
1. MAZON agrees with USDA’s proposal that state agencies must set
income eligibility guidelines between 185% and 250% of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines. We understand that the proposed revision would
reduce the variance in income eligibility criteria across states, and that
a national, allowable range for income eligibility would allow the
Department to protect TEFAP access for those individuals most in
need while simultaneously providing state agencies flexibility to
develop maximum income-based eligibility standards above this
range, subject to FNS approval.

14

2. MAZON agrees with USDA’s proposal that state agencies must
develop a process for requesting residency information from
households to determine eligibility, but may not require households
to provide an address or identification to confirm residency. This
would ensure that TEFAP agencies would retain the ability to develop
statewide eligibility criteria which fit their needs, while supporting
program access for vulnerable individuals and households.
3. MAZON supports USDA’s proposal that TEFAP state agencies be
required to annually post a list of all eligible recipient agencies on a
public website, in addition to making participant eligibility information
available on a public website to increase awareness of the program
and encourage greater participation.
4. MAZON supports USDA’s proposal removing federal address
collection requirements for TEFAP participants who receive USDA
Foods for home consumption as it is administratively burdensome for
program operators and does not serve a demonstrated program
need. The COVID–19 pandemic increased demand at emergency
feeding organizations and resulted in long lines for families searching
for food assistance. Removing the federal address collection
requirement would simplify the administration of TEFAP for eligible
recipient agencies, and also allow states to develop more streamlined
methods for determining TEFAP applicant residency to help local
program operators reduce wait time for food distribution.
5. MAZON agrees with USDA’s proposal to add a requirement that
TEFAP participant information must be kept confidential and limits
are established on the disclosure of information obtained from
applicants or participants and the identity of persons making a
complaint or allegation against persons participating in or
administering the program.
6. While we appreciate the intent of USDA’s proposal to encourage
state agencies and eligible recipient agencies to implement or expand
distributions of USDA Foods in Tribal areas, in addition to the rural
areas, MAZON has serious concerns about the likelihood of states
taking action if the regulation only “encourages'' them to bring TEFAP
to Tribal areas. In our experience, states take action when FNS
requires them. States do not take action when FNS encourages,

15

provides guidance or does anything that does not mandate. It is clear
and understood that rural, remote, and Tribal areas are accepted as
vulnerable populations that have specific challenges related to access
and transportation.
In order for USDA to make significant improvements to access and
parity in TEFAP for Tribal areas, states must be required to serve
Tribal areas and should engage in meaningful consultation with Tribes
in recognition of Tribal sovereignty and self determination.
The most effective way to improve access and parity in TEFAP in Tribal
areas will be for Congress to designate Tribes as legally eligible to
administer TEFAP. Among the Native Farm Bill Coalition’s priorities for
the next Farm Bill is ensuring that Tribes will have the option to
administer TEFAP.
7. In addition, MAZON recommends that USDA seriously consider
adding the veteran population to this list to expand distribution of
USDA foods to address the high rates of food insecurity among
veterans. State and county veteran service offices, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities, and veteran service organizations could
potentially be partners in a proactive effort to increase veteran
participation in TEFAP and other federal nutrition programs.
8. MAZON supports USDA’s proposal to make updates to advise the
public that TEFAP must be operated in accordance with the most
up-to-date USDA nondiscrimination statement. We understand the
proposed change would align the regulations with the current
applicable USDA nondiscrimination statement and any future changes
to the nondiscrimination statement.
9. MAZON supports USDA’s proposed revisions that would update the
information that must be included in TEFAP state plans for Farm to
Food Bank Projects, and ensure that state agencies can easily locate
all requirements for these projects in the regulations.
10. MAZON supports USDA’s proposed technical updates to replace
outdated the terms ``commodities,” “food commodities,” “TEFAP
commodities,” “TEFAP foods,” “donated foods,” and “donated
commodities'' to “USDA Foods.”

16

USDA Foods in Disasters and Situations of Distress
MAZON appreciates USDA’s proposals based on lessons learned
during the COVID-19 pandemic to streamline and clarify regulations.
MAZON’s comments follow.
1. MAZON supports USDA’s proposal to remove the prohibition on the
simultaneous provision of USDA Foods in Disasters or Situations of
Distress and Disaster SNAP (D-SNAP) benefits. Because the prohibition
is not in the statute, removing the prohibition will allow for greater
flexibility and increase access to both programs for participants in an
emergency, disaster, or situation of distress.
2. MAZON does not support USDA’s proposal to 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. Regardless of the length of the disaster or emergency, USDA
should prioritize getting food to those in need and reducing the
administrative burden on state and local agencies. MAZON
recommends retaining the current regulation in which state
distributing agencies are required to report types and amounts of
USDA Foods used in disaster assistance 45 days after the termination
of disaster assistance regardless of the length of the disaster or
emergency.
3. MAZON supports USDA's proposal that would ensure that the use
of USDA Foods for disaster response activities does not have an
ongoing negative impact on the operation of other programs. USDA
Foods for disaster response activities are typically drawn from local
USDA Foods inventories that support permanent programs such as
TEFAP. The prolonged nature of the COVID–19 pandemic has been
atypical when compared to previous Presidentially declared disasters
or emergencies that lasted weeks or months rather than years. This
provision would ensure that state agencies consider the operation of
other USDA Foods programs when making decisions about using
USDA Foods for disaster response activities.

17

4. MAZON supports USDA’s proposal to replace the outdated terms
“commodities,” “food commodities,” “donated commodities,” and
“donated foods,” with “USDA Foods.”

MAZON recognizes and appreciates the committed efforts by FNS to
continue to improve and increase access and parity to USDA nutrition
programs, as are reflected in these regulation proposals.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to continuing to
work with USDA in our mutual pursuit for food and nutrition security
for all Americans, and would be pleased to assist in answering any
questions.

Sincerely,

Abby J. Leibman
President and CEO
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger

Cc:
Stacy Dean, Deputy Under Secretary, USDA Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services
Cindy Long, Administrator, USDA Food and Nutrition Service

18