The Emergency Food Assistance Program
July 21, 2021
(TEFAP): Background and Funding
Kara Clifford Billings
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a federal food distribution
Analyst in Social Policy
program that supports food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and other emergency

feeding organizations serving low-income Americans. Federal assistance takes the form
of federal y purchased commodities—including fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains—

and funding for administrative costs. Food aid and funds are distributed to states using a
statutory formula that takes into account poverty and unemployment rates. TEFAP is administered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
TEFAP was established as the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program by the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983. The Emergency Food Assistance Act continues to govern program operations, while the
Food and Nutrition Act authorizes funding for TEFAP’s entitlement commodities. TEFAP also incorporates bonus
commodities, which are distributed at USDA’s discretion throughout the year to support different crops using
separate budget authority. A smal er amount of discretionary funding is appropriated annual y to cover
administrative and distribution costs under Emergency Food Assistance Act authority. In addition to normal aid,
additional commodities and administrative funds have been distributed through TEFAP in recent years as a result
of USDA’s Trade Mitigation Food Purchase and Distribution Program and supplemental appropriations from
COVID-19 pandemic response laws. In FY2020, federal spending on TEFAP was nearly $2.8 bil ion.
FNS coordinates the purchasing of commodities and the al ocation of commodities and administrative funds to
states, and provides general program oversight. State agencies—often state departments of health and human
services, agriculture, or education—determine program eligibility rules and al ocations of aid to feeding
organizations (cal ed recipient agencies). States often task food banks, which operate regional warehouses, with
distributing foods to other recipient agencies. TEFAP aid makes up a modest proportion of the food and funds
available to emergency feeding organizations, which are reliant on private donations as wel .
TEFAP is the primary federal program supporting emergency feeding organizations. Other related food
distribution programs focus on specific subpopulations; for example, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA’s) Emergency Food and Shelter Program distributes food to homeless individuals and USDA’s
Commodity Supplemental Food Program distributes food to older individuals with lower incomes.
TEFAP is typical y amended and reauthorized through farm bil s. Most recently, the 2018 farm bil (P.L. 115-334)
extended funding for TEFAP’s entitlement commodities through FY2023. The law also funded new projects
aimed at incorporating non-federal y donated foods into the program and reducing food waste. Recent program
developments include TEFAP’s use in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and receipt of trade mitigation
commodities.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 29 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 25

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 27 link to page 9 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Introduction
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP; previously the Temporary Emergency Food
Assistance Program) provides federal y purchased commodities and a smal er amount of cash
support to food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, and other types of emergency
feeding organizations serving low-income households and individuals.1 Commodities include
fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains, among other foods.2 In addition to serving individuals,
TEFAP’s domestic commodity purchases support the agricultural economy by reducing supply on
the market, thereby increasing food prices. TEFAP is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
TEFAP was established under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 in an effort to dispose
of government-held agricultural surpluses and al eviate hunger in the wake of a recession and
declining food stamp benefits.3 Since then, TEFAP has evolved into a permanent program that
includes mandatory, annual y appropriated funding that operates in al 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and four U.S. territories.4 The program was most recently reauthorized by the 2018
farm bil (P.L. 115-334).
At the federal level, TEFAP is administered by FNS in collaboration with USDA’s purchasing
agency, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). At the state level, TEFAP is administered by a
state distributing agency designated by the governor or state legislature; general y, they are state
departments of health and human services, agriculture, or education. Federal commodities and
funds may flow through the state or directly to feeding organizations (cal ed recipient agencies)
based on how the state structures the program.5 States wil often task food banks with processing
and distributing food to local feeding organizations. Food banks typical y operate regional
warehouses and distribute food to other organizations rather than to households directly.6 Figure
1 depicts the flow of commodities and funds through TEFAP.

1 T he 1990 farm bill (P.L. 101-624) removed “T emporary” from the program title.
2 USDA, FNS, USDA Foods Available List for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 2021 , March 15,
2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/usda-foods-available-list-tefap.
3 See Appendix C for further legislative history.
4 Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. T hroughout
this report, the term states includes these other jurisdictions. For an explanation of appropriated mandatory funding, see
CRS Report RS20129, Entitlem ents and Appropriated Entitlem ents in the Federal Budget Process.
5 Consistent with statute and regulations, this report uses the term recipient agency to describe organizations receiving
T EFAP support , with the understanding that emergency feeding organizations are the most common type of recipient
agency.
6 See “Program Administration” for further discussion of federal, state, and local roles. C. Cabili, E. Eslami, and R.
Briefel, White Paper on the Em ergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) , prepared by Mathematica for the Office of
Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2013, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/T EFAPWhitePaper.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 27

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Figure 1. Flow of Foods and Funds through TEFAP

Source: Adapted from USDA, FNS, White Paper on the Emergency Food Assistance Program, 2013.
a. States may distribute food to recipient agencies directly or task recipient agencies with food distribution to
other recipient agencies. States often delegate this responsibility to food banks.
TEFAP is part of a larger web of food assistance programs.7 Some of these programs provide cash
assistance while others primarily distribute food. TEFAP foods may reach individuals who do not
qualify for other food assistance programs or supplement the assistance that individuals receive
through other programs. Related federal programs include the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA’s) Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which, among its other services for
homeless individuals, provides food through shelters, food banks, and food pantries.8 In addition,
USDA’s Commodity Supplemental Food Program distributes monthly food packages to low-
income elderly individuals through local organizations, which can include food banks and
pantries.9 The Farmers to Families Food Box Program, which USDA operated from May 2020 to
June 2021, provided food boxes to food banks and other nonprofit organizations for distribution
to households in need during the COVID-19 pandemic.10
This report begins by describing the population using emergency food assistance. It goes on to
discuss the TEFAP program, including its administration at the federal, state, and local levels,
eligibility rules, and funding structure. The report concludes by summarizing TEFAP’s role in
disaster response and recent reauthorization efforts. Appendix A lists TEFAP expenditures from
the program’s inception in 1983 to present; Appendix B lists TEFAP funding by state; and
Appendix C provides a brief legislative history of TEFAP.
Definitions
Emergency feeding organizations (EFOs): “The term ‘emergency feeding organization’ means a public or
nonprofit organization that administers activities and projects (including the activities and projects of a charitable
institution, a food bank, a food pantry, a hunger relief center, a soup kitchen, or a similar public or private
nonprofit eligible recipient agency) providing nutrition assistance to relieve situations of emergency and distress
through the provision of food to needy persons, including low-income and unemployed persons.”
Common types of EFOs:

Food banks: “The term ‘food bank’ means a public or charitable institution that maintains an established
operation involving the provision of food or edible commodities, or the products of food or edible

7 See CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
8 For more information, see CRS Report R42766, The Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program and
Hom eless Assistance.
9 For more information, see CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs.
10 For more information, see CRS Report R46681, USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs: Response to the COVID-19
Pandem ic.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

commodities, to food pantries, soup kitchens, hunger relief centers, or other food or feeding centers that, as
an integral part of their normal activities, provide meals or food to feed needy persons on a regular basis.”

Food pantries: “The term ‘food pantry’ means a public or private nonprofit organization that distributes
food to low-income and unemployed households, including food from sources other than the Department of
Agriculture, to relieve situations of emergency and distress.”

Soup kitchens: “The term ‘soup kitchen’ means a public or charitable institution that, as an integral part of
the normal activities of the institution, maintains an established feeding operation to provide food to needy
homeless persons on a regular basis.”
Source: Section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7501)
The Demand for Emergency Food Assistance
According to an analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data by USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS), an estimated 5.7 mil ion households (4.4%) utilized food pantries (see
Figure 2) and at least 129,200 households (0.5%) utilized soup kitchens at least once in 2019.11
However, this is likely an underestimate of the population using emergency food assistance
because the sample excluded households with incomes over 185% of the poverty guidelines that
did not report any indications of food insecurity on screener questions, and the CPS does not fully
capture households who are homeless or in tenuous housing arrangements. For comparison, a
survey by Feeding America, a nonprofit membership and advocacy organization, estimated that
approximately 15.5 mil ion households accessed its network of feeding organizations in 2013 (the
same year, ERS estimated that 6.9 mil ion households used food pantries and soup kitchens). The
Feeding America network represents a large segment of emergency feeding organizations
nationwide.12
More recent analyses indicate that use of emergency feeding organizations rose during the
COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis by the Urban Institute (a nonprofit research organization)
found that 19.7% of nonelderly adults utilized food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and
similar organizations in December 2020, up from 13.2% in December 2019.13
Data on the number of TEFAP food recipients are not available, in part because TEFAP
commodities are mixed in with other commodities provided by emergency feeding organizations
and because of “the transient nature of participation.”14

11 Households utilizing food pantries included 14.3 million individuals, and households utilizing soup kitchens included
323,200 individuals. Food pantry use was defined as “ receiving emergency food from a church, food pantry, or food
bank.” A. Coleman-Jensen, M.P. Rabbitt, C.A. Gregory, and A. Singh, Statistical Supplement to Household Food
Security in the United States in 2019, AP-084, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September
2020, pp. 22-23, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99289/ap-084.pdf?v=6449.
12 Feeding America’s network includes 200 food banks and 60,000 food pantries, according to FeedingAmerica.org,
Our Network, http://www.feedingamerica.org/our-work/food-bank-network.html. In 2000, Feeding America’s network
included 80% of emergency feeding organizations according to J.C. Ohls et al., The Em ergency Food Assistance
System —Findings From the Provider Survey, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the Food and Rural
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA, October 2002, p. 2, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
pub-details/?pubid=46507.
13 Elaine Waxman, Poonam Gupta, and Dulce Gonzalez, “Ch aritable Food Use Increased Nearly 50 Percent from 2019
to 2020,” Urban Institute, March 2021, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103825/charitable-food-
use-increased-nearly-50-percent -from-2019-to-2020_0.pdf.
14 USDA, FNS, Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs,
prepared by Westat for the Office of Research and Analysis, January 2012, p. 3-84, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/
default/files/ops/NutrientMyPyramid.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Figure 2. Number of Households Using Food Pantries, 2005-2019
And as a percentage of low-income households nationwide

Source: CRS graphic based on data contained in statistical supplements to Household Food Security in the United
States, USDA Economic Research Service, for 2005-2019.
Notes: This represents the number of households who reported that they received emergency food from a
food pantry, food bank, or church in the last 12 months. This may be an underestimate of the number of
households using food pantries due to the fact that the Census’s Current Population Survey (CPS) Food Security
Supplement focuses on households with incomes under 185% of the poverty guidelines and excludes homeless
individuals and underrepresents those in tenuous housing arrangements.
Characteristics of Emergency Food Recipients
Food insecurity is common among households using emergency feeding organizations.15
According to the ERS analysis, 65.7% of households using food pantries and soup kitchens were
food insecure in 2019, meaning that they had difficulty providing enough food for al of their
members at times during the year due to a lack of resources.16 Roughly half of these households
experienced very low food security, meaning that the food intake of some household members
was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted due to limited resources.
According to the ERS analysis, in 2019 households using food pantries were more likely to have
incomes below 185% of poverty compared to other respondents (66% vs. 20%) and to include
children (34% vs. 29%).17 Meanwhile, according to the 2014 Feeding America survey, individuals

15 A. Coleman-Jensen, M.P. Rabbitt, C.A. Gregory, and A. Singh, Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security
in the United States in 2019, AP-084, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 20 20,
pp. 21-23, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99289/ap-084.pdf?v=
6449https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-deta ils/?pubid=94869.
16 Ibid. “Food security” focuses on economic and access-related factors associat ed with an individual’s ability to
purchase food or otherwise obtain enough to eat, as opposed to hunger, which is considered a physiological condit ion.
For more information on the differences between food insecurity and hunger, see CRS Report R42353, Dom estic Food
Assistance: Sum m ary of Program s.
17 A. Coleman-Jensen, M.P. Rabbitt, C.A. Gregory, and A. Singh, Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security
in the United States in 2019, AP-084, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 20 20,
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 19 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

using meal programs (e.g., soup kitchens and shelters) were general y single-person households
and were more likely to be homeless. In 2013, just over 70% of households using the Feeding
America network of meal programs had a single member and nearly 34% were homeless or living
in temporary housing.18
In addition, emergency feeding organizations may act as a safety net for food insecure households
who are ineligible for or do not participate in other federal food assistance programs. For
example, in the case of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), households may
have an income too high to qualify for assistance but stil experience difficulty purchasing food,
or they may fail to meet other program eligibility rules.19 Among households using feeding
organizations affiliated with Feeding America’s network, a little more than half (55%) reported
receiving SNAP benefits in 2013.20
Program Administration
Federal Role
FNS is responsible for al ocating aid to states (see “State Al ocation Formula”) and coordinating
the ordering, processing, and distribution of commodities. Specifical y, FNS al ocates entitlement
aid and administrative funds to states and decides which foods wil be available in the USDA
Foods catalog. States and recipient agencies then place orders for certain quantities and types of
commodities based on their entitlement al ocation (discussed further in the next section).21 FNS
collaborates closely with USDA’s purchasing agency—the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)—to process and fulfil the orders.22 AMS and FNS also collaborate to purchase and
distribute bonus commodities throughout the year that are not based on state requests but rather
USDA’s discretion to support different crops. Selected vendors deliver both entitlement and
bonus commodities to state-selected distribution points.23
FNS also issues regulations and guidance and provides general oversight of states’ TEFAP
operations. FNS provides oversight by reviewing and approving state TEFAP plans, which are
documents that outline each state’s operation of TEFAP. States are required to submit
amendments to the plan for approval “when necessary to reflect any changes in program

pp. 22-23, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/99289/ap-084.pdf?v=6449.
18 Weinfield et al., Hunger in America 2014, Feeding America, prepared by Westat and the Urban Institute, August
2014, pp. 91, 100-102, http://help.feedingamerica.org/HungerInAmerica/hunger-in-america-2014-full-report.pdf.
19 For more information on SNAP eligibility, see CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP): A Prim er on Eligibility and Benefits.
20 Weinfield et al., Hunger in America 2014, Feeding America, prepared by Westat and the Urban Institute, August
2014, http://help.feedingamerica.org/HungerInAmerica/hunger-in-america-2014-full-report.pdf.
21 For the 2021 list of T EFAP food selections, see USDA, FNS, “T he Emergency Food Assistance Program;
Availability of Foods for Fiscal Year 2021,” 86 Federal Register 3988, January 15, 2021, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/tefap/tefap-foods-available.pdf.
22 C. Cabili, E. Eslami, and R. Briefel, White Paper on the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) , prepared by
Mathematica for the Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agricult ure, August
2013, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/T EFAPWhitePaper.pdf.
23 Section 203B of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7505); 7 C.F.R. §251.4.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 12 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

operations or administration as described in the plan, or at the request of FNS, to the appropriate
FNS Regional Office.”24
State Role
TEFAP is administered at the state level by an agency designated by the governor “or other
appropriate State executive authority” that enters into an agreement with FNS.25 As of 2021,
states most commonly housed TEFAP in a health, human, or social services department (21
states), agriculture department (14 states), or education department (10 states).26 State agencies
administering TEFAP are responsible for creating eligibility and other program rules (see
“Eligibility Rules for Individuals and Households”), which are outlined in state plans approved by
FNS.27 They are also responsible for selecting and overseeing recipient agencies.
Federal regulations al ow states to delegate a number of responsibilities to recipient agencies
(e.g., regional food banks), including selecting and subcontracting with other recipient agencies.28
States often delegate the ordering and distribution of USDA Foods to food banks, which receive
foods and make deliveries to other recipient organizations, such as food pantries.29 According to a
50-state analysis conducted by Feeding America in 2020, nearly al states reported that
commodities were delivered directly to recipient agencies (often to food banks for distribution to
other organizations).30 States cannot delegate their responsibility to set eligibility rules or oversee
recipient agencies.31
States must review at least 25% of recipient agencies contracting directly with the state (e.g., food
banks) at least once every four years, and at least one-tenth or 20 (whichever is fewer) of other
recipient agencies each year.32 If the state finds deficiencies in the course of review, the state
agency must submit a report with the findings to the recipient agency and ensure that corrective
action is taken.

24 Section 202A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7503).
25 7 C.F.R. §251.2.
26 USDA, FNS, TEFAP State Contacts, https://www.fns.usda.gov/contacts, accessed on June 15, 2021. T he remaining
9 states/territories housed T EFAP in another department, such as a family services or economic security agency. T he
state agency was not listed for the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
27 Individual state plans can usually be found on the state agency’s website that administers T EFAP. A list of state
agencies that administer T EFAP is available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/contacts. According to Section 202A of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7503), state plans must include eligibility rules.
28 7 C.F.R. §251.2, 7 C.F.R. §251.5; C. Cabili, E. Eslami, and R. Briefel, White Paper on the Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP), prepared by Mathematica for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, Office of Policy Support , August 2013, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
T EFAPWhitePaper.pdf.
29 Feeding America, The Emergency Food Assistance Program: State Guide, February 2020,
https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Resource_Feeding-America-T EFAP-State-by-State-
Guide.pdf; Washington State Department of Agriculture, The Em ergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP):
Distribution National Survey 2015, AGR 609-574. Per Section 202A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983
(codified at 7 U.S.C. §7503), state plans must describe how the st ate will give recipient agencies an opportunity to
provide input on the commodities selected.
30 Washington State Department of Agriculture, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Distribution
National Survey 2015, AGR 609-574. Larger states often reported multiple, regional warehouses while smaller states
sometimes had one central warehouse.
31 7 C.F.R. §251.5.
32 7 C.F.R. §251.10.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Local Role
Organizations that are eligible for TEFAP aid are referred to as recipient agencies in the
Emergency Food Assistance Act. According to the statute, recipient agencies are public or
nonprofit organizations that administer
 emergency feeding organizations;
 charitable institutions;
 summer camps or child nutrition programs;
 nutrition projects operating under the Older Americans Act of 1965; or
 disaster relief programs.33
The first category of organizations—emergency feeding organizations—receive priority under
TEFAP statute and regulations and also receive the majority of TEFAP aid.34 Emergency feeding
organizations are defined as public or nonprofit organizations “providing nutrition assistance to
relieve situations of emergency and distress through the provision of food to needy persons,
including low-income and unemployed persons.”35 They include food banks, food pantries, soup
kitchens, and other organizations serving similar functions.
Recipient agencies are responsible for serving and distributing TEFAP foods to individuals and
households. As discussed above, they may also have additional responsibilities as delegated by
the state agency; for example, food banks may be tasked with distributing food to subcontracted
recipient agencies like food pantries and soup kitchens, which in turn distribute foods or serve
prepared meals to low-income individuals and families.
In addition, recipient agencies must adhere to program rules. For example, they must safely store
food and comply with state and/or local food safety and health inspection requirements.36
Recipient agencies must also maintain records of the commodities they receive and a list of
households receiving TEFAP foods for home consumption.37 There are also restrictions on the
types of activities that can occur at distribution sites. Recipient agencies must ensure that any
unrelated activities are conducted in a way that makes clear that the activity is not part of TEFAP
and that receipt of TEFAP foods is not contingent on participation in the activity.38 Activities may
not disrupt food distribution or meal service and may not be explicitly religious.39 In addition,
recipient agencies may not engage in recruitment activities designed to persuade an individual to
apply for SNAP benefits.40

33 Section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7501).
34 Section 203B of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7505) gives states the option to
give emergency feeding organizations priority. When they cannot meet the full demand of all eligible recipient
organizations, states m ust give priority to emergency feeding organizations according to T EFAP regulations (7 C.F.R.
§251.4). T he statement that emergency feeding organizations receive the majority of T EFAP aid is based on CRS
communication with the Food and Nutrition Service in September 2018.
35 Section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7501).
36 7 C.F.R. §250.14.
37 7 C.F.R. §251.10.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid; USDA, FNS, Further Clarification on the Prohibition Against Explicitly Religious Activities As Part of TEFAP
and CSFP Activities, FD-142, November 28, 2016, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/fdd/FD-142-
Prohibition-Religious-Activities.pdf.
40 USDA, FNS, Prohibition of SNAP Recruitment and Promotion Activities by FDPIR and TEFAP Administering
Congressional Research Service

7

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Characteristics of Emergency Feeding Organizations
The most recent national y representative survey of emergency feeding organizations was conducted in 2000 by
USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS).41 ERS found that there were approximately 400 food banks, 32,700
food pantries and 5,300 soup kitchens in the United States in 2000.42 These organizations were reliant on both
private and public donations, including TEFAP support. According to the survey, TEFAP foods comprised 14% of
foods distributed by the emergency food assistance system and TEFAP administrative funds comprised 12% to 27%
of organizations’ operating costs in 2000.43 However, this proportion may fluctuate from year to year.
Most food banks in the ERS survey were secular, nonprofit organizations, while the majority of food pantries and
soup kitchens were nonprofit organizations associated with a religious group.44 Food banks were likely to be
affiliated with a national organization, including Feeding America (previously Second Harvest), United Way,
Foodchain, Salvation Army, the Red Cross, and Catholic Charities.45 Al types of emergency feeding organizations
were dependent on volunteers.46
Eligibility Rules for Individuals and Households
Under broad federal guidelines, states set eligibility rules for individuals and households
participating in TEFAP. Eligibility rules differ for organizations distributing commodities directly
to households (e.g., food pantries) and organizations providing prepared meals (e.g., soup
kitchens). States must develop income-based standards for households receiving foods directly,
but cannot set such standards for individuals receiving prepared meals. However, organizations
serving prepared meals must serve predominantly needy persons, and states “may establish a
higher standard than ‘predominantly’ and may determine whether organizations meet the
applicable standard by considering socioeconomic data of the area in which the organization is
located, or from which it draws its clientele.”47
Income eligibility rules for households receiving TEFAP foods directly vary by state. Many states
limit income eligibility to household incomes at or below 185% of the poverty guidelines.48 Some
states also confer household eligibility based on participation in other federal and state programs
(known as categorical eligibility).49

Agencies, Policy Memorandum No. FD-143, May 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/fdd/FD-143-
prohibition-snap-recruitment.pdf.
41 Feeding America published a study in 2014 of its network of feeding organizations (discussed in this report).
However, while the Feeding America network comprises a large portion of the emergency feeding network, it is not a
nationally representative sample of organizations.
42 J.C. Ohls et al., The Emergency Food Assistance System —Findings From the Provider Survey, 16-2, prepared by
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA,
October 2002, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=46507.
43 Ibid; see pp. 133-134 for T EFAP’s proportion of foods and pp. 45, 77, 110 for its proportion of operating costs.
44 J.C. Ohls et al., The Emergency Food Assistance System —Findings From the Provider Survey, 16-2, prepared by
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Resea rch Service, USDA,
October 2002, pp. 16 and 50, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=46507.
45 Ibid, p. 81.
46 Ibid, pp. 39, 72, 108.
47 7 C.F.R. §251.5.
48 Examples include Arizona, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. Individual
state plans can usually be found on the state agency’s website that administers T EFAP. A list of state agencies that
administer T EFAP is available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/contacts.
49 See page 10 of Feeding America, The Emergency Food Assistance Program: State Guide, February 2020,
https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Resource_Feeding-America-T EFAP-State-by-State-
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 link to page 21 link to page 14 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

States may also create other eligibility rules for households’ receipt of TEFAP foods, such as
requiring identification or proof of residency within the state or a specific locality.50 However,
according to federal regulations, length of residency cannot be a criterion.51
Funding and Appropriations
Federal assistance through TEFAP is primarily provided in the form of USDA-purchased
domestic agricultural commodities (USDA Foods). A smal er amount of assistance is provided in
the form of cash support for administrative and distribution costs.
There are two types of TEFAP commodities: entitlement commodities and bonus commodities.
Funding for entitlement commodities is considered appropriated mandatory spending, meaning
that the authorizing law sets the level of spending but an annual appropriation is needed to
provide funding.52 Funding for bonus commodities is not included in the TEFAP appropriation
and is instead provided by separate USDA budget authority. These funds are used by USDA for
bonus commodity purchases for the program throughout the year. TEFAP's administrative funds
are discretionary spending, requiring an annual appropriation.53
In FY2021, there is nearly $2.3 bil ion available for entitlement purchases and administrative
funds, including funds from COVID-19 pandemic response acts (shown in Table 1, and discussed
further in the “COVID-19 Pandemic Response” section). USDA may also distribute bonus
commodities in FY2021 (not reflected in the table). In FY2020 (the most recent year with
complete data), USDA distributed $701 mil ion in bonus commodities through TEFAP.54 Bonus
commodities increased in FY2019 and FY2020 as a result of the Administration’s trade aid
package (discussed below).
Table 1. TEFAP Funding, FY2021
Budget Authority for TEFAP Entitlement Foods, Administrative Funds, and Other Activities (Excluding
Bonus Foods) in FY2021
Budget
Authority
(millions
Authority
Description
of dollars)
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
Mandatory funding for TEFAP’s Farm to Food Bank
3.7a
(Section 4018 of P.L. 115-334)
Projects (available through FY2022)

Guide.pdf.
50 See individual state plans for state-specific eligibility rules, which can usually be found on the state agency’s website
that administers T EFAP. A list of state agencies that administer T EFAP is available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/
contacts. For a summary of state policies as of February 2020, see Feeding America, The Em ergency Food Assistance
Program : State Guide, February 2020, https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
Resource_Feeding-America-T EFAP -State-by-State-Guide.pdf.
51 7 C.F.R. §251.5(b); Feeding America, The Emergency Food Assistance Program: State Guide, February 2020,
https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Resource_Feeding-America-T EFAP-State-by-State-
Guide.pdf.
52 For an explanation of appropriated mandatory spending, see CRS Report R44582, Overview of Funding Mechanisms
in the Federal Budget Process, and Selected Exam ples.
53 Funding for T EFAP’s entitlement commodities is typically contained in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) account and appropriations for administrative costs is typically contained in the Commodity
Assistance Program (CAP) account of annual appropriations acts.
54 USDA, FNS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service,” p. 34-129, https://www.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Budget
Authority
(millions
Authority
Description
of dollars)
The Further Consolidated Appropriations
Carryover funds from FY2020 for TEFAP
190.6
Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94)
entitlement foods and administrative costs (available
through FY2021)
Families First Coronavirus Response Act
Supplemental funding for TEFAP entitlement foods
197.1
(FFCRA; P.L. 116-127)
and administrative costs (available through FY2021)
CARES Act (P.L. 116-136)
Supplemental funding for TEFAP entitlement foods
81.2
and administrative costs (available through FY2021)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
Annual appropriation for TEFAP entitlement foods
421.6
(Title IV, Division A, P.L. 116-260)
and administrative costs (available through FY2022)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
Supplemental funding for TEFAP entitlement foods
400.0
(Section 711 of Title VII, Division N, P.L.
and administrative costs (available through FY2021)
116-260)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
Supplemental funding for the Office of the
500.0b
(Section 751 of Title VII, Division N, P.L.
Agricultural Secretary (“available until expended, to
116-260)
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus”)
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA;
Supplemental funding for the Office of the
500.0b
Section 1001 of P.L. 117-2)
Agricultural Secretary (available through FY2021)
Total

2,294.2
Source: CRS, based on current law; correspondence with USDA, FNS, in June 2021; USDA, FNS, “FY 2021
Food and Administrative Funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program,” February 16, 2021,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/fy-2021-funding; and USDA, FNS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and
Nutrition Service,” p. 34-129, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
Notes: Excludes budget authority for bonus commodities that may be distributed through TEFAP in FY2021.
a. FY2021 funding after sequestration (Section 4018 of P.L. 115-334 provides $4 mil ion for TEFAP’s Farm to
Food Bank Projects in each of FY2019-FY2023).
b. On June 4, 2021, USDA announced that it would use $500 mil ion in Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 funds and $500 mil ion in ARPA funds for TEFAP to support the Build Back Better initiative (USDA,
“USDA to Invest $1 Bil ion to Purchase Healthy Food for Food Insecure Americans and Build Food Bank
Capacity,” June 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/06/04/usda-invest-1-bil ion-
purchase-healthy-food-food-insecure-americans). According to CRS communication with FNS on June 28,
2021, these funds were from Section 751 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 and Section 1001
of ARPA, both of which included funding for the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase and distribute
agricultural commodities to individuals in need.
Commodity Food Support
Entitlement Commodities
Mandatory funding for TEFAP commodities is authorized by Section 27 of the Food and
Nutrition Act (codified at 7 U.S.C. §2036). The act authorizes $250 mil ion annual y plus
additional amounts each year in FY2019 through FY2023 as a result of amendments made by the
2018 farm bil (P.L. 115-334). In FY2019, the additional amount was $23 mil ion; for each of
FY2020-FY2023, the additional amount is $35 mil ion. Both the base funding of $250 mil ion
Congressional Research Service

10

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

and the additional amounts are adjusted for food price inflation.55 Appropriations may also
provide additional discretionary funding for commodities beyond the levels set in the Food and
Nutrition Act.
Historical y, appropriations laws have al owed states to convert a portion of their funds for
entitlement commodities into administrative funds. In past years, states were al owed to convert
10% of funds; FY2018 and FY2019 appropriations acts increased the proportion to 15%, and the
FY2020 and FY2021 appropriations acts increased the proportion to 20%.56 States general y
exercise this option; for example, in FY2020, states converted $52.8 mil ion out of a possible
$63.5 mil ion in eligible funds.57 States are also al owed to carry over entitlement commodity
funds into the next fiscal year.58
Within USDA, FNS works closely with AMS to determine what purchases are made for TEFAP.
FNS also solicits input from state and local agencies. According to TEFAP’s authorization of
appropriations in the Food and Nutrition Act, USDA must, “to the extent practicable and
appropriate, make purchases based on (1) agricultural market conditions; (2) preferences and
needs of States and distributing agencies; and (3) preferences of recipients.”59
TEFAP’s Authorizing Laws
The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983: governs TEFAP operations and authorizes discretionary
funding for administrative costs (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7501-7516)
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (previously the Food Stamp Act): Section 27 authorizes mandatory
funding for TEFAP commodities (codified at 7 U.S.C. §2036)
Bonus Commodities
Bonus commodities are purchased at USDA’s discretion throughout the year using separate (non-
TEFAP) USDA budget authority for that purpose. USDA’s purchases of bonus commodities are
based on agricultural surpluses or other economic problems, as raised by farm and industry
organizations or USDA’s own commodity experts. The amount and type of bonus commodities
that USDA purchases for TEFAP fluctuates from year to year, and depends largely on agricultural
market conditions. States and recipient agencies are not required to accept bonus foods.
USDA’s purchases of bonus commodities stem from two authorities: Section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).60 Section 32 is a permanent

55 Amounts are adjusted using the T hrifty Food Plan (T FP), a USDA-calculation that estimates the cost of purchasing a
nutritionally adequate low-cost diet . T he T FP is the cheapest of four diet plans meeting minimal nutrition requirements
devised by USDA. USDA calculates the cost of the T FP each year to account for food price inflation ; however, the
contents of the T FP—often thought of as its own market basket of goods—were last revised in 2006.
56 T he Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). For FY2002-FY2008, states were allowed to convert
$10 million of entitlement commodity funds into administrative funds. For FY2009-FY2017, states were allowed to
convert 10% of entitlement commodity funds into administrative funds. For FY2018 and FY2019, they were allowed to
convert 15%. For FY2020 and FY2021, they were allowed to convert 20%. St ates may convert any amount of
administrative funds into food funds, but this happens to a lesser extent.
57 USDA, FNS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service,” p. 34-129, https://www.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
58 T his has occurred since FY2015 as a result of a provision in the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79).
59 Section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §2036(b)).
60 For Section 32 purchasing authorities, see Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (P .L. 74-320). For CCC
purchasing authorities, see Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act. T he Secretary’s authority to donate such commodities to
T EFAP is established by Section 17 of the Commodity Distribution Reform And WIC Amendments Act Of 1987.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 19 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

appropriation that sets aside the equivalent of 30% of annual customs receipts to support the farm
sector through the purchase of surplus commodities and a variety of other activities.61 The CCC is
a government-owned entity that finances authorized programs that support U.S. agriculture. Its
operations are supported by USDA’s Farm Service Agency. The CCC has permanent, indefinite
authority to borrow up to $30 bil ion from the U.S. Treasury to finance its programs.62
Section 32 has historical y financed TEFAP commodities to a greater extent than the Commodity
Credit Corporation.63 Unlike CCC support, which is normal y limited to price-supported
commodities (such as milk, grains, and sugar), Section 32 is less constrained in the types of
commodities that may be provided, and can include meats, poultry, fruits, vegetables, and
seafood.
In FY2020, USDA distributed $701 mil ion in bonus commodities purchased under Section 32
through TEFAP.64 Other bonus commodities were funded under CCC authority (discussed below).
The level of bonus commodities has fluctuated substantial y over time (see Figure 3).
Trade Mitigation Purchases
In 2018 and 2019, the Trump Administration announced two trade aid packages aimed at assisting
farmers impacted by retaliatory tariffs, using CCC authority.65 The first trade aid package,
announced in August 2018, included $1.2 bil ion in purchases of bonus commodities for
distribution to TEFAP and other domestic food assistance programs.66 The second trade aid
package, announced in May 2019, provided another $1.4 bil ion for such purposes.67 In total,
USDA distributed $1.1 bil ion worth of trade mitigation foods through TEFAP in FY2019 and
$1.2 bil ion in FY2020.68 The Biden Administration has not announced any plans to purchase
trade mitigation commodities.
Types of Foods
USDA-purchased agricultural products (USDA Foods) in TEFAP include a variety of products,
such as meats, eggs, vegetables, soup, beans, nuts, peanut butter, cereal, pasta, milk, and juice.69
Most foods are nonperishable and ready for distribution when delivered to states, although some

61 For more information, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program .
62 For more information, see CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
63 CRS communication with the Food and Nutrition Service in September 2018.
64 USDA, FNS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service,” p. 34-129, https://www.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
65 For more information, see CRS Report R45310, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2018 Trade Aid Package; and CRS Report
R45865, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2019 Trade Aid Package.
66 For more information, see CRS Report R45310, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2018 Trade Aid Package; and CRS Report
R45865, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2019 Trade Aid Package. USDA, “ USDA Announces Details of Assistance for
Farmers Impacted by Unjustified Retaliation,” press release, August 27, 2018, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-
releases/2018/08/27/usda-announces-details-assistance-farmers-impacted-unjustified. T he largest purchases announced
include pork, sweet cherries, apples, pistachios, dairy, and almonds.
67 USDA, “USDA Announces Support for Farmers Impacted by Unjustified Retaliation and T rade Disruption,” press
release, May 23, 2019, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/05/23/usda-announces-support -farmers-
impacted-unjustified-retaliation-and.
68 USDA, FNS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service,” p. 34-129, https://www.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
69 USDA, FNS, USDA Foods Available List for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 2021 , March 15,
2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/usda-foods-available-list-tefap.
Congressional Research Service

12

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

foods, such as some meat and dairy products, require refrigeration.70 States and recipient agencies
can request entitlement commodities from a list of USDA Foods. USDA selects bonus foods
based on market conditions. In FY2020, bonus food purchases included “apples, beans, cheese,
dried cherries, chicken, eggs, fig pieces, milk, orange juice, plums, pollock, potatoes, spaghetti
sauce, lentils, shrimp, deli turkey breast, and almonds.”71
According to a 2012 USDA study, TEFAP foods are relatively nutritious compared to foods in the
average American diet.72 The study found that TEFAP entitlement and bonus foods delivered to
states in FY2009 scored 88.9 points out of a possible 100 points on the Healthy Eating Index—a
measure of compliance with federal dietary guidelines—compared to 57.5 points scored by the
average American diet.73 Keeping in mind that TEFAP foods are general y meant to supplement
diets, the study also found that these foods would supply 81% of fruits, 69% of vegetables, 98%
of grains, 171% of protein, 36% of dairy, 84% of oils, and 39% of the maximum solid fats and
added sugars recommended for a 2,000-calorie diet.74
Administrative Cash Support
TEFAP provides funds to cover state and recipient agency costs related to processing, storing,
transporting, and distributing USDA-purchased commodities, as wel as administrative costs
related to determining eligibility, training staff, recordkeeping, and publishing announcements.75
Administrative funds can also be used to support states’ food recovery efforts.76
The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 authorizes $100 mil ion to be appropriated annual y
for administrative costs.77 In recent years, annual appropriations acts have provided nearly $80
mil ion in discretionary funding for TEFAP administrative funds.78
The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 also authorizes up to $15 mil ion to be appropriated
for TEFAP infrastructure grants (and this authority was extended by the 2018 farm bil ). Funds
were last appropriated for these grants in FY2010.79 In FY2021, USDA made $100 mil ion

70 C. Cabili, E. Eslami, and R. Briefel, White Paper on the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) , prepared by
Mathematica for the Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agricult ure, August
2013, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/T EFAPWhitePaper.pdf.
71 USDA, FNS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service,” p. 34-128, https://www.usda.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf.
72 See USDA, FNS, Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs,
prepared by Westat for the Office of Research an d Analysis, January 2012, p. 3-76 to 3-84, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/NutrientMyPyramid.pdf.
73 Federal dietary guidelines refer to the 2010 USDA Food Patterns, which are based on the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans.
74 USDA, FNS, Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs,
prepared by Westat for the Office of Research and Analy sis, January 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/ops/NutrientMyPyramid.pdf.
75 Section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7508).
76 Section 203D and Section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. 7§507). Also see
C. Cabili, E. Eslami, and R. Briefel, White Paper on the Em ergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) , prepared by
Mathematica for the Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agricult ure, August
2013, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/T EFAPWhitePaper.pdf.
77 Section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act Of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7508).
78 T he Further Consolidated Appropriations Act , 2020 (P.L. 116-94) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(P.L. 116-260) provided an annual appropriation of $79.6 million for T EFAP administrative funds in each of FY2020
and FY2021.
79 USDA, FNS, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) General Infrastructure Grant,
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 21 link to page 19 link to page 23 link to page 27 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

available for a new program that wil include infrastructure improvements (discussed further in
the “COVID-19 Pandemic Response” section).80
The statute specifies that administrative funds must be made available to states, which must in
turn distribute at least 40% of the funds to emergency feeding organizations.81 However, states are
required to match whatever administrative funds they keep. As a result, states typical y send
nearly al of these funds to emergency feeding organizations.82
States can convert any amount of their administrative funds to food funds, but this happens to a
lesser extent than the conversion of food funds to administrative funds.83
Funding Trends
Figure 3 displays TEFAP’s expenditures on administrative costs, entitlement commodities, and
bonus commodities from the program’s inception (FY1983) to FY2020 in constant (inflation-
adjusted) dollars (see Appendix A for specific dollar amounts). TEFAP expenditures reached a
recent high in FY2019 and FY2020 as a result of additional funding for entitlement commodities
and administrative costs provided by COVID-19 pandemic response acts and the Trump
Administration’s trade mitigation program. Previously, spending was highest around the time of
the program’s inception, when TEFAP served as a means for disposing of large stockpiles of
government-held commodities (for further legislative history, see Appendix C).

https://www.fns.usda.gov/emergency-food-assistance-program-tefap-general-infrastructure-grant; Section 209 of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7511a).
80 USDA, “USDA to Invest $1 Billion to Purchase Healthy Food for Food In secure Americans and Build Food Bank
Capacity,” June 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/06/04/usda-invest-1-billion-purchase-
healthy-food-food-insecure-americans.
81 Section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act Of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7508).
82 For the percentage of administrative funds distributed to recipient organizations by state, see USDA, FNS,
“Percentage of T EFAP Administrative Funds Passed T hrough from State Agencies to Emergency Feeding
Organizations: FY2019,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/percentage-tefap-administrative-funds-passed-through-state-
agencies-emergency-feeding.
83 USDA, AMS, “FY2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Agricultural Marketing Service,” p. 23-116,
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/23AMS2022Notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Figure 3. TEFAP Expenditures, FY1983-FY2020

Source: CRS calculations using USDA, FNS Congressional Budget Justifications for FY1983-FY2022. Amounts
are in FY2020 dol ars, adjusted for GDP inflation by CRS using Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
“Historical Tables: Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–
2026,” April 2021.
Notes: Expenditures are after conversion of any entitlement commodity funds to administrative funds, and
administrative funds to commodity funds, and include any entitlement food and administrative funds that states
carried over from the prior fiscal year. In FY2009 and FY2010, entitlement food and administrative fund amounts
include supplemental American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. ARRA included $100 mil ion in
TEFAP commodity funding and $50 mil ion in TEFAP administrative funding that was distributed in FY2009 and
FY2010. An additional $28 mil ion in ARRA funds were reprogrammed as TEFAP administrative funds in FY2010.
State Allocation Formula
TEFAP’s entitlement commodity and administrative funds are al ocated to states based on a
statutory formula that takes into account poverty and unemployment rates.84 Specifical y, USDA
calculates each state’s share of the total national number of households with incomes below the
federal poverty level and each state’s share of the total national number of unemployed
individuals. A state’s share of households in poverty is then multiplied by 60% and its share of
unemployed individuals is multiplied by 40% to calculate the state’s share of TEFAP
commodities and funds. For example, if a state has 4% of al households in poverty and 2% of al
unemployed individuals, it would receive (4% x 60% = 2.4%) + (2% x 40% = 0.8%) = 3.2% of
TEFAP funds.85 As noted previously, states may carry over any extra food or administrative funds
for one fiscal year (e.g., from FY2020 to FY2021).

84 7 C.F.R. §251.3(h). Administrative funds use the same formula as commodities according to Section 204 of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7508).
85 T his explanation draws upon Appendix B of C. Cabili, E. Eslami, and R. Briefel, White Paper on the Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), prepared by Mathematica for the Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2013 , https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
Congressional Research Service

15

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

State Funding
States must match any administrative funds that are not al ocated to emergency feeding
organizations or expended by the state on behalf of such organizations.86 In practice, most states
use 80% to 100% of their administrative funds to support emergency feeding organizations,
resulting in a smal state match requirement.87
Beyond the state match, 14 states reported supplying additional state funds “to support the
TEFAP program either directly or indirectly” in a national survey conducted by the Washington
State Department of Agriculture in 2015.88
There is also a maintenance of effort requirement in TEFAP, meaning that states cannot reduce
their own funding or commodity support for recipient agencies below the level that they were
supporting such organizations at the program’s inception or FY1988 (when the maintenance of
effort went into effect)—whichever is later.89
Role of TEFAP During Disasters and Emergencies
There are two main ways TEFAP can be deployed in disaster response: (1) transferring TEFAP
foods to disaster response organizations for distribution to households (Disaster Household
Distribution programs) and (2) adjusting TEFAP program rules and/or distributing additional aid
through TEFAP. Both of these approaches have been used during the COVID-19 pandemic
(discussed in the next section).
During a presidential y declared disaster or emergency, USDA may approve state requests to
operate Disaster Household Distribution programs and repurpose USDA Foods (largely from
TEFAP) for direct distribution to households in areas affected by an emergency or disaster.90
USDA later replenishes or reimburses TEFAP and federal nutrition assistance programs for the
reprogrammed foods.91 Disaster Household Distribution facilitates faster distribution to
households by reducing administrative requirements (e.g., removing eligibility determinations);
however, it temporarily results in lower USDA Foods inventory for TEFAP and other federal
nutrition assistance programs. USDA authorized Disaster Household Distribution using TEFAP
foods in several states in recent years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.92

T EFAPWhitePaper.pdf.
86 Section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7508).
87 USDA, FNS, “Percentage of T EFAP Administrative Funds Passed T hrough from State Agencies to Emergency
Feeding Organizations (EFO): FY2019,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/percentage-tefap-administrative-funds-
passed-through-state-agencies-emergency-feeding. Note that territories are exempt from the matching requirement if it
is under $200,000 (7 C.F.R. §251.9).
88 See Washington State Department of Agriculture, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Distribution
National Survey 2015, AGR 609-574.
89 Section 215 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §7516).
90 7 C.F.R. §250.69; USDA, FNS, Food Distribution Division, “USDA Foods Program Disaster Manual,” revised
September 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/fdd/disaster-manual.pdf; USDA, FNS, “ USDA Foods
Disaster Assistance,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/disaster/usda-foods-disaster-assistance. Note that households cannot
receive both disaster SNAP benefits and disaster USDA Foods. USDA Foods for household consumption are most
often obtained from inventories intended for T EFAP, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
91 7 C.F.R. §250.69(g).
92 For example, foods intended for T EFAP were used for disaster response in Florida, T exas, and Puerto Rico following
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 13 link to page 19 link to page 23 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Additional foods may also be distributed through TEFAP to aid in disaster and emergency
response, and additional flexibilities may be provided. For example, USDA and/or states may
adjust certain program rules during a disaster or emergency (e.g., by amending state plans). In
addition, Congress may provide supplemental funding for disaster or emergency feeding through
TEFAP, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic and during hurricanes and wildfires in
recent years.93
COVID-19 Pandemic Response
TEFAP has been involved in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic both in terms of transferring
foods to Disaster Household Distribution programs and distributing a higher volume of foods
through TEFAP.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, USDA authorized some states’ requests to use TEFAP foods for
Disaster Household Distribution. Following the presidential emergency declaration for COVID-
19, USDA approved requests from 21 states, Guam, and 33 tribal nations to repurpose TEFAP
foods for Disaster Household Distribution during the early months of the pandemic.94 These
approvals had different timeframes but typical y ended by July 2020.
There was also additional federal aid distributed through TEFAP as a result of funding provided
by COVID-19 pandemic response acts. Specifical y, supplemental appropriations for TEFAP
were provided by FFCRA ($400 mil ion), the CARES Act ($450 mil ion), and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2021 ($400 mil ion).95 In addition, the Biden Administration announced
its intent to use funds provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2021 ($500 mil ion)
and ARPA ($500 mil ion) for TEFAP (1) entitlement food purchases with priority for smal ,
women-owned, minority-owned, and veteran-owned businesses and to continue a fresh produce
box initiative announced earlier in the year;96 (2) cooperative agreements with state and tribal
governments or other local entities to purchase local and regional foods and foods from social y
disadvantaged producers, and (3) infrastructure grants for emergency feeding organizations, with
an emphasis on those in “underserved communities and communities of color.”97 TEFAP funds
available in FY2021 are displayed in Table 1. FFCRA and CARES Act funds expended in
FY2020 are included in Figure 3 and Table A-1.

Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria in 2017. For a list of FNS’s disaster response by state, see USDA, FNS, “ State by
State FNS Disaster Assistance,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/disaster/state-by-state.
93 For example, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) provided $24 million in supplemental funding for
T EFAP commodities and administrative funds to jurisdictions that received a major disaster or emergency declaration
related to the consequences of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria or wildfires in 2017.
94 USDA, FNS, “ Disaster Household Distribution,” June 11, 2020, https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda-foods/covid-19-
disaster-household-distribution.
95 FFCRA (P.L. 116-127, Division A, T itle I); CARES Act (P.L. 116-136, Division B, T itle I); Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260, Division N, T it le VII, §711). T hese laws also specified the proportion of
funding could be used for administrative/food distribution costs.
96 USDA, FNS, “T EFAP Fresh Produce,” March 30, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/fresh-produce.
97 USDA, “ USDA to Invest $1 Billion to Purchase Healthy Food for Food Insecure Americans and Build Food Bank
Capacity,” June 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/06/04/usda-invest -1-billion-purchase-
healthy-food-food-insecure-americans.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 19 link to page 19 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

USDA also encouraged states to make policy changes within TEFAP to facilitate safe food
distribution, such as expanding eligibility rules for participants and waiving signature
requirements for the receipt of TEFAP foods.98
The 2018 Farm Bill
In addition to reauthorizing and extending TEFAP’s funding, the 2018 farm bil (§4018 of P.L.
115-334) made policy changes to TEFAP. The law authorized Farm to Food Bank Projects (as
termed by USDA), which are projects that support the harvesting, processing, packaging, and/or
transporting of raw or unprocessed commodities from agricultural producers, processors, and
distributors to emergency feeding organizations. The law provided $4 mil ion in annual
mandatory funding for the projects from FY2019 to FY2023 and required at least a 50%
nonfederal match. States must include a plan of operations for Farm to Food Bank Projects in
their state TEFAP plans in order to receive federal funding. The law gives USDA discretion to
determine how funds are al ocated to such states; through rulemaking published in October 2019,
USDA established that funds would be al ocated the same way as current TEFAP entitlement
funds, based on their share of households in poverty and unemployed persons (see “State
Al ocation Formula”).99 FNS awarded funds to 19 states in FY2020 and 24 states in FY2021 that
submitted plans to implement Farm to Food Bank Projects.100
The 2018 farm bil also required states to include, in their TEFAP state plans, a plan to provide
emergency feeding organizations and other recipient agencies with the opportunity to provide
input on commodity preferences and needs (e.g., in regards to USDA Foods), such as through a
state advisory board. In addition, the law required USDA to issue guidance outlining best
practices to minimize food waste of commodities donated by non-USDA entities. USDA issued
guidance regarding this provision on August 15, 2019.101

98 USDA, FNS, “ Questions and Answers related to COVID-19 and the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(T EFAP),” May 22, 2020, https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/covid-19-qas.
99 USDA, FNS, “T he Emergency Food Assistance Program: Implementation of the Agriculture Impr ovement Act of
2018,” 84 Federal Register 52997 October 4, 2019, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/04/2019-
21665/the-emergency-food-assistance-program-implementation-of-the-agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018. For more
information on Farm to Food Bank Projects, see USDA, FNS, “ T he Emergency Food Assistance Program Farm to
Food Bank Project Grants,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/farm-to-food-bank-project -grants.
100 USDA, FNS, “T he Emergency Food Assistance Program Farm to Food Bank Pr oject Grants,” March 4, 2021,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/farm-to-food-bank-project-grants.
101 USDA, FNS, “Best Practices to Minimize Food Waste of Privately Donated Foods to T he Emergency Food
Assistance Program (T EFAP) State Agencies and Emergency Feeding Organizations,” August 15, 2019,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/best-practices-minimize-food-waste.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 link to page 24 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Appendix A. TEFAP Spending, FY1983-FY2020
Table A-1. Total TEFAP Expenditures, FY1983-FY2020
Constant (inflation-adjusted) FY2020 dol ars in mil ions
Trade
Annual
Annual
Disaster
Mitigation
Fiscal
Administrative
Entitlement
Bonus
Foods and
Foods and
Year
Funds
Foods
Foods
Funds
Funds
Total
1983
120.5
-
2,001.4
-
-
2,121.9
1984
115.0
-
2,369.8
-
-
2,484.9
1985
126.5
-
2,157.3
-
-
2,283.8
1986
108.7
-
1,839.3
-
-
1,948.0
1987
105.6
-
1,786.9
-
-
1,892.5
1988
102.1
-
1,097.3
-
-
1,199.4
1989
98.2
314.4
265.7
-
-
678.3
1990
95.5
303.6
227.0
-
-
626.1
1991
91.4
277.8
163.2
-
-
532.4
1992
78.9
265.7
149.5
-
-
494.0
1993
76.6
272.9
180.1
-
-
529.7
1994
67.1
200.2
81.1
-
-
348.3
1995
65.1
106.1
57.3
-
-
228.6
1996
48.9
78.3
22.8
-
-
150.0
1997
65.1
203.5
46.1
-
-
314.7
1998
71.9
154.9
168.5
-
-
395.2
1999
70.1
136.5
164.5
-
-
371.0
2000
65.1
147.3
241.7
-
-
454.0
2001
65.0
144.8
464.4
-
-
674.2
2002
77.8
193.0
245.4
-
-
516.2
2003
83.1
181.4
337.1
-
-
601.6
2004
80.3
174.4
316.2
-
-
570.9
2005
76.9
171.2
202.4
-
-
450.5
2006
80.5
165.0
85.0
7.6
-
338.1
2007
71.6
161.2
71.8
-
-
304.5
2008
68.1
217.4
212.4
-
-
497.9
2009
105.7
401.0
445.8
a
-
952.5
2010
142.6
271.8
406.2
a
-
820.6
2011
80.5
261.5
269.4
-
-
611.5
2012
73.9
272.7
341.6
-
-
688.2
2013
71.2
273.7
253.0
6.3
-
604.1
Congressional Research Service

19

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Trade
Annual
Annual
Disaster
Mitigation
Fiscal
Administrative
Entitlement
Bonus
Foods and
Foods and
Year
Funds
Foods
Foods
Funds
Funds
Total
2014
75.3
292.1
325.7
-
-
693.1
2015
80.3
354.6
328.5
-
-
763.4
2016
83.9
345.1
329.1
-
-
758.1
2017
88.3
314.7
284.6
-
-
687.5
2018
93.9
297.8
320.0
24.9
-
736.6
2019
151.2
259.4
410.0
-
1,077.8
1,898.4
2020
137.2
92.2
716.2
606.5
1,193.3
2,745.4
Source: CRS calculations using USDA, FNS Congressional Budget Justifications for FY1983-FY2022. Amounts
are in FY2020 dol ars, adjusted for GDP inflation by CRS using Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
“Historical Tables: Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–
2026,” April 2021.
Notes: Expenditures are after conversion of any entitlement commodity funds to administrative funds, and
administrative funds to commodity funds, and include any entitlement food and administrative funds that states
carried over from the prior fiscal year.
a. In FY2009 and FY2010, entitlement food and administrative fund amounts include supplemental American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. ARRA included $100 mil ion in TEFAP commodity funding
and $50 mil ion in TEFAP administrative funding that was distributed in FY2009 and FY2010. An additional
$28 mil ion in ARRA funds were reprogrammed as TEFAP administrative funds in FY2010.
Congressional Research Service

20

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Appendix B. TEFAP Spending by State, FY2020
Table B-1. TEFAP Expenditures by State, FY2020

Trade
Disaster
Mitigation
Annual
Annual
Foods and
Foods and
Administrative
Entitlement
Bonus
Administrative
Administrative
Funds
Foods
Foods
Funds
Funds
Total
AL
2,416,876
1,884,512
10,079,875
7,111,754
19,211,823
40,704,839
AK
254,805
364,083
2,017,364
1,786,460
4,148,451
8,571,164
AZ
3,042,206
2,789,227
21,035,100
18,641,094
40,538,597
86,046,224
AR
1,212,770
969,500
9,863,773
6,836,149
14,603,019
33,485,211
CA
17,916,310
14,880,295
76,312,849
76,333,354
117,628,056
303,070,863
CO
2,116,982
1,086,040
11,415,399
9,914,270
18,654,199
43,186,891
CT
815,588
1,286,099
5,939,293
4,610,285
7,444,506
20,095,771
DE
267,403
130,006
3,525,000
1,867,418
9,286,649
15,076,475
DC
433,634
274,029
338,824
1,422,749
217,727
2,686,963
FL
9,142,328
6,337,604
48,514,642
37,929,440
87,236,931
189,160,946
GA
3,857,469
2,653,095
18,341,519
23,969,641
34,568,067
83,389,790
HI
242,030
476,767
939,477
2,080,045
3,717,137
7,455,456
ID
624,397
237,607
1,499,410
2,499,844
3,574,673
8,435,931
IL
5,739,798
1,409,892
23,509,815
21,343,646
42,473,754
94,476,906
IN
1,944,168
1,592,146
14,689,215
11,907,345
26,896,267
57,029,141
IA
1,089,875
921,169
5,929,043
4,803,909
8,760,129
21,504,125
KS
968,459
474,158
6,703,799
3,552,832
11,062,076
22,761,325
KY
2,311,433
3,667,035
12,362,674
8,680,332
21,199,353
48,220,827
LA
2,226,831
2,834,513
15,109,533
9,686,075
29,851,681
59,708,632
ME
532,615
505,570
3,519,840
2,391,208
5,792,533
12,741,767
MD
2,219,784
1,276,880
1,697,832
8,328,103
2,482,106
16,004,705
MA
1,544,339
1,685,894
10,115,480
9,242,547
15,567,489
38,155,749
MI
4,716,937
4,033,319
26,167,468
20,189,612
44,043,384
99,150,720
MN
1,993,209
926,677
8,514,277
9,113,046
14,754,589
35,301,799
MS
1,746,415
1,207,461
4,990,716
4,648,082
12,660,830
25,253,504
MO
2,017,670
2,250,109
12,606,370
12,178,642
23,166,588
52,219,380
MT
460,125
323,151
1,646,198
2,010,609
3,309,845
7,749,929
NE
678,105
322,619
3,333,124
3,694,943
5,553,989
13,582,780
NV
933,213
825,341
11,390,703
5,097,111
17,899,463
36,145,831
NH
380,854
327,811
846,858
1,347,453
2,455,531
5,358,507
NJ
3,312,345
2,924,583
11,549,043
15,241,824
30,235,673
63,263,468
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 26 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Trade
Disaster
Mitigation
Annual
Annual
Foods and
Foods and
Administrative
Entitlement
Bonus
Administrative
Administrative
Funds
Foods
Foods
Funds
Funds
Total
NM
1,270,631
1,131,967
7,569,670
6,888,500
11,531,199
28,391,968
NY
8,877,416
3,785,046
42,763,190
31,435,702
73,227,932
160,089,286
NC
4,776,108
3,702,518
29,120,389
19,421,051
45,526,553
102,546,620
ND
254,065
267,487
1,644,296
1,275,128
2,361,738
5,802,715
OH
5,646,341
3,854,383
27,547,274
19,388,485
51,550,022
107,986,505
OK
1,427,873
1,026,147
9,807,909
3,571,335
17,601,723
33,434,988
OR
1,906,720
1,723,620
9,431,259
7,065,632
15,333,656
35,460,887
PA
5,560,867
4,277,991
28,594,165
19,391,138
45,063,382
102,887,543
RI
437,017
436,766
1,883,918
732,292
2,604,983
6,094,975
SC
1,305,764
1,129,469
11,406,820
8,718,053
12,682,493
35,242,599
SD
228,414
69,628
1,905,537
1,270,131
2,669,239
6,142,947
TN
2,998,407
2,711,936
14,981,343
10,158,368
21,313,942
52,163,996
TX
10,833,176
9,814,295
76,497,612
58,846,435
118,172,451
274,163,969
UT
809,501
600,608
5,457,175
3,930,415
10,391,706
21,189,406
VT
212,760
15,738
700,268
737,093
1,417,633
3,083,492
VA
2,994,962
2,664,565
9,504,834
13,364,753
14,919,215
43,448,329
WA
3,217,224
2,655,232
16,917,919
12,151,286
25,355,706
60,297,367
WV
1,012,307
1,031,282
5,680,108
4,109,585
16,360,375
28,193,656
WI
2,148,841
1,890,100
10,688,250
6,766,668
18,448,207
39,942,066
WY
132,564
239,875
1,263,310
1,160,016
2,907,455
5,703,220
CNMIa
49,607
182,719
-
494,914
-
727,240
GU
127,613
91,303
680,111
515,948
904,942
2,319,918
PR
3,536,800
652,183
999,512
14,001,945
3,902,695
23,093,136
USVI
67,075
111,204
16,954
119,380
79,598
394,210
Total
137,164,951
92,238,004 716,234,057
606,466,988
1,193,321,963 2,745,425,962
Source: Data acquired through CRS communication with USDA on June 28, 2021.
Notes: Entitlement foods and administrative funds categories include funds carried over from FY2020 and
funding from COVID-19 pandemic response acts. Table shows expenditures after conversion of any entitlement
commodity funds to administrative funds, and administrative funds to commodity funds.
Amounts may not sum to total. Entitlement food total includes $3.6 mil ion in spending on federal food
procurement administrative expenses. Bonus food total includes $16.7 mil ion for a commodity barter of peanuts
in exchange for peanut butter that was delivered to multiple states. Totals for administrative costs, entitlement
foods, and disaster aid include anticipated adjustments of $173,925, -$16,281,242, and $12,492,912, respectively.
a. USDA provided the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands with cash in lieu of commodities in
FY2020.
Congressional Research Service

22

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

Appendix C. Legislative History of TEFAP
Program Inception102
In 1982, the Reagan Administration created a discretionary dairy distribution program to dispose
of stockpiles of CCC-purchased commodities (namely, cheese and butter). This effort occurred in
the aftermath of reductions in federal food assistance (e.g., food stamps) legislated in 1981 and
1982, and in the midst of an economic recession and concern over hunger and homelessness.
USDA distributed the foods to states, which selected the recipient organizations.
As the program developed, there were requests for additional types of commodities such as flour,
rice, and non-fat dry milk that USDA had purchased and put in storage. In addition, there were
reports of local organizations declining foods because of a lack of storage and distribution
capacity. These and other factors prompted pressure for federal cash assistance as wel as
increased variety and volume of foods. In 1983, Congress followed up with funding for grants to
help with distribution costs and legislative authority that created the Temporary Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP) (P.L. 98-8 and P.L. 98-92). Establishment of TEFAP helped reduce
federal commodity inventory (and storage costs), provided an alternative source of food
assistance for low-income individuals, and supported an expanding network of charitable
emergency feeding providers that also drew food and resources from private sources.103
Changes to TEFAP’s Funding104
USDA continued to distribute large amounts of CCC-purchased foods (including cheese, butter,
nonfat dry milk, cornmeal, flour, honey, and rice) through FY1988. That year, CCC holdings
began to drop substantial y because of changes in agricultural policies and the economy, and the
Reagan Administration indicated plans to phase out TEFAP. Instead, Congress authorized
appropriated mandatory funding (starting at $120 mil ion for FY1989) to buy commodities for
distribution through TEFAP, entitling the program to a minimum level of support regardless of the
level of federal commodity holdings (P.L. 100-435). The law also created a separate program to
buy commodities for soup kitchens and food banks not receiving TEFAP commodities
(mandatory funding was provided at $40 mil ion for FY1989). The separate program was
established out of a concern that some food banks had trouble meeting TEFAP rules, and that
most commodities for emergency feeding were going to local agencies that distributed food
packages directly to individuals and families (e.g., food pantries), rather than to soup kitchens,
homeless shelters, and other organizations serving meals in congregate settings.

102 Adapted from CRS Report RL30164, The Emergency Food Assistance Program and Emergency Feeding Needs;
and CRS Issue Brief IB85095, Com m odity Donations to the Poor: The Tem porary Em ergency Food Assistance
Program . (Both reports are available to congressional clients upon request to CRS).
103 Further discussion of the history and expansion of the emergency feeding network is in Doug O’Brien, Erinn Staley,
Stephanie Uchima, Eleanor T hompson, and Halley T orres Aldeen, The Charitable Food Assistance System : The
Sector’s Role in Ending Hunger in America, UPS Foundation and the Congressional Hunger Center, 2004,
https://www.hungercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Charitable-Food-Assistance-System-Americas-
Second-Harvest.pdf.
104 Adapted from CRS Report RL30164, The Emergency Food Assistance Program and Emergency Feeding Needs;
and CRS Issue Brief IB85095, Com m odity Donations to the Poor: The Tem porary Em ergency Food Assistance
Program . (Both reports are available to congressional clients upon request to CRS).
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 22 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

In 1990, the omnibus farm bil (P.L. 101-624) changed funding for TEFAP and the soup kitchen
program from appropriated mandatory to discretionary (dependent on annual appropriations
decisions). The law also removed the word “Temporary” from the program title. Over the next
few years, funding for TEFAP declined, reaching an al -time low in FY1996. However, that same
year, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA; P.L. 104-
193) reinstated appropriated mandatory funding ($100 mil ion per year through FY2002) for
TEFAP’s entitlement foods, partly in an effort to provide a safety net for households losing access
to food stamps as a result of other provisions in the law. PRWORA also incorporated the soup
kitchen program into TEFAP.
Following these changes, funding general y increased in the late 1990s and early to mid-2000s.
There was another dip in appropriations in FY2006 and FY2007, but the 2008 farm bil raised
annual entitlement purchases to $250 mil ion starting in FY2009 (indexed annual y for food-price
inflation in later years).105 There were also supplemental funds available for TEFAP in FY2009
and FY2010 as a result of ARRA. In addition, the 2014 farm bil increased mandatory funding for
TEFAP’s entitlement commodities by a Congressional Budget Office (CBO)-estimated $125
mil ion over five years.106 Total funding from FY2011 to FY2018 hovered around $600-$700
mil ion annual y.107
Recent Changes and Increases in Spending
As discussed in this report, there have been several changes to, and an influx of federal aid in,
TEFAP in recent years. The 2018 farm bil once again increased funding for TEFAP’s entitlement
foods, by a CBO-estimated $105 mil ion over five years. It also provided mandatory funding of
$4 mil ion for each of FY2019-FY2023 for new Farm to Food Bank Projects (discussed in the
“The 2018 Farm Bil ” section). These projects, which provide funds directly to local
organizations, are emblematic of a recent debate over USDA’s food purchasing role in TEFAP.
This debate resurfaced at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and contributed to USDA’s
creation of a temporary program, the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, which attempted to
expedite the federal purchasing process.108
In August 2018, the Trump Administration announced an additional $1.2 bil ion for TEFAP bonus
purchases as part of its trade aid package.109 These and another round of purchases ($1.4 bil ion)
were distributed through TEFAP in FY2019 and FY2020.110 In FY2020 and FY2021, TEFAP saw
another influx of aid as lawmakers aimed to use the program to address increased demand for

105 CRS Report RL33934, The 2008 Farm Bill: A Summary of Major Provisions and Legislative Action (available to
congressional clients upon request).
106 CRS Report R43332, SNAP and Related Nutrition Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113 -79).
107 USDA, FNS Congressional Budget Justifications for FY2008-FY2020, available at USDA, “Congressional
Justifications: Archived USDA Explanatory Notes,” https://www.usda.gov/obpa/congressional-justifications.
108 USDA, AMS webinar on April 21, 2020, recording available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/
farmers-to-families-food-box.
109 For more information, see CRS Report R45310, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2018 Trade Aid Package; and CRS Report
R45865, Farm Policy: USDA’s 2019 Trade Aid Package. USDA, “ USDA Announces Details of Assistance for
Farmers Impacted by Unjustified Retaliation,” press release, August 27, 2018, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-
releases/2018/08/27/usda-announces-details-assistance-farmers-impacted-unjustified. T he largest purchases announced
include pork, sweet cherries, apples, pistachios, dairy, and almonds.
110 USDA, “USDA Announces Support for Farmers Impacted by Unjustified Retaliation and T rade Disruption,” press
release, May 23, 2019, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/05/23/usda-announces-support -farmers-
impacted-unjustified-retaliation-and.
Congressional Research Service

24

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding

food assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic.111 In total, approximately $2.7 bil ion was
available for TEFAP in FY2020, and at least $2.3 bil ion is available in FY2021 (excluding bonus
purchases)—three times the amount available in FY2018. It is unclear whether this level of
spending is a new normal for TEFAP, or whether it wil return to prior levels.

Author Information

Kara Clifford Billings

Analyst in Social Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

111 Nicholas Kulish, “‘Never Seen Anything Like It’: Cars Line Up for Miles at Food Banks,” April 8, 2020, New York
Tim es, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/business/economy/coronavirus-food-banks.html.
Congressional Research Service
R45408 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
25