User:Regoc14/Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program

History
After hunger-activist groups had become upset with the Reagan Administration's cuts to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) in 1981, the administration responded by enacting the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982 which allowed for surpluses of dairy products (cheese) to be given by states to public and private organizations that then donated these products to low-income families. Despite criticism, the Reagan administration expanded this process by launching the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The program not only helped low-income Americans gain access to food commodities in times of desperation, but also helped establish a network of private emergency feeding organizations (EFOs) (ie-food pantries, food banks, soup kitchens, etc) that assisted in the delivering of food to low-income families and individuals.

In the first six years of TEFAP, the United States Federal Government (through USDA) funded the program by contributing $50 million annually towards administrative (and distribution) costs. By 1988, the federal government, in addition to funding administrative costs, began purchasing $120 million worth of food annually for the program as surpluses of available foods decreased. As a result, private organizations now received funding by the government to distribute to low-income families. However, this form of funding began to decline in 1994, as only $80 million worth of food were funded. With less food being distributed, the program experienced a phasing-out and by 1996 the federal government had used no money to purchase food.

In 1997, the program rebounded through the efforts of Dan Glickman, whom was the newly appointed secretary of the USDA. The federal government has since provided funding for administrative costs and has purchased food commodities for the program.

Economic Effects
There are numerous perceived economic effects and outcomes that The Emergency Food Assistance Program produces: TEFAP impacts the way both users and non-users of the program consume goods and services; the price of foods are also effected. For users of the program, foods that users consume freely through TEFAP reduce their demand for substitute foods, or food items that they would purchase had they not had access to free food provided by the program. Furthermore, prices for substitute foods in markets decreased. Non-users of the program are more willing to purchase foods that are elastic in demand, due to the fact that the program reduced the prices. Contrarily, users will demand more (spend more) of foods that are compliments to the free food commodities TEFAP provides.

Perceptions and Use
Aside from governments, private organizations, and EFO's (food banks) that emerged as a result of the program's implementation, advocates and benefits of the program historically include farmers and businesses within the food industry looking to reduce costs.

There is limited information about TEFAP users' attitude toward the program, however, one study suggests that families with children or disabled persons value the program the most among other groups that use the program, despite being the group that uses the program the least. Reasons for their limited use include their lack of access to transportation (disabled persons and children are unable to operate vehicles) and lack of knowledge in assembling certain foods (primarily canned goods).

Unemployed persons who use the program have generally demonstrated negative attitudes about the program; while full-time workers, retirees, and disabled persons (people who cannot work do to disabilities) have considered the program beneficial on account of the fact that it helped them to expand their food budget and use excess money on other needs. Hence, by giving users access to free food, users were able to have left over money to spend on higher quality foods and other goods and services.

Geographical factors and population density also contribute to the program's efficiency and use. Rural agencies often receive fewer donations under TEFAP due to the fact that they include a smaller network of volunteer support compared to urban cities. This suggests that there is less opportunity for low-income family's in lower-income families in rural areas comparatively to urban areas.