GAO 21 353 Usda Food Box Program
Summary
GAO report GAO-21-353, dated September 8, 2021 and addressed to congressional committees, examines the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farmers to Families Food Box Program, which USDA implemented in May 2020 and which ran through May 31, 2021. The report states that six billion dollars in congressional appropriations were directed to the program. GAO's analysis finds that 243 contractors delivered more than 176 million food boxes to recipient organizations, reaching nearly 78 percent of all U.S. counties. GAO finds that USDA could not assess the program's goals of helping contractors retain jobs and helping food producers because it did not systematically collect the necessary data. GAO recommends that USDA apply this lesson to current and future emergency food assistance programs, and USDA agreed.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Committees
USDA FOOD BOX
September 2021
PROGRAM
Key Information and
Opportunities to
Better Assess
Performance
GAO-21-353
September 2021
USDA FOOD BOX PROGRAM
Key Information and Opportunities to Better Assess
Performance
Highlights of GAO-21-353, a report to
congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found
The COVID-19 pandemic caused Through contractors, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farmers to
disruptions in the U.S. food supply Families Food Box Program purchased fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy, and
chain and contributed to a national meat products from producers and delivered them to recipient organizations,
hunger crisis. In response, USDA such as food banks. USDA’s goals for the program included providing food to
implemented the Food Box Program in those in need, helping contractors retain jobs, and supporting producers. USDA
May 2020. USDA directed a total of $6 collected large amounts of data and analyzed various data on deliveries to
billion in congressional appropriations recipient organizations—that is, total number of food boxes delivered to each
to the program, which lasted 1 year. state and per million people in each state—and determined that the program met
The program included organizations
its goal of providing food to those in need. GAO further analyzed USDA’s data
such as food banks, which received
and found that 243 contractors delivered more than 176 million food boxes to
food boxes; contractors that purchased
and delivered the food; and food
recipient organizations across the U.S. and territories by the end of the program
producers, such as farmers and (see figure). GAO’s analysis also found that food boxes were delivered to nearly
ranchers. 78 percent of all U.S. counties, including to more than 89 percent of counties
where at least 20 percent of the population lives in poverty.
The CARES Act contained a provision
for GAO to conduct monitoring and Number of Food Boxes Contractors Delivered to Recipient Organizations for the Food Box
oversight of the use of funds related to Program
the COVID-19 pandemic. This report
examines the extent to which USDA
collected and analyzed data on
participants in the program, including
data necessary to assess performance
in meeting program goals.
GAO analyzed information from
USDA’s website, database, and
departmental guidance. GAO also
compared USDA’s efforts to collect
and analyze data on the program
against federal guidance, USDA’s
strategic plan, and documents that
include lessons learned. GAO also
interviewed USDA officials.
USDA could not analyze the program’s performance in meeting its other two
What GAO Recommends goals: (1) helping contractors (i.e., distributors of goods) retain jobs and (2)
helping food producers faced with declining demand—because USDA did not
GAO recommends that USDA apply
systematically collect the necessary data. For example, USDA did not collect
the lesson learned from the Food Box
Program regarding collecting and data on (1) the number of jobs contractors might have lost but ultimately retained
analyzing data to assess program as a result of participating in the program and (2) the number, category, and size
goals to current and future emergency of participating producers or whether the pandemic had reduced demand for or
food assistance programs. USDA sales of the type of product the producer provided for the program.
agreed with the recommendation. USDA officials acknowledged that a key lesson learned during the
implementation of the Food Box Program was the need to collect and analyze
such data but that the department did not have time to do so. Federal guidance
expresses the importance of balancing speed with transparency, and states that
View GAO-21-353. For more information,
federal managers should use data and evidence to achieve program goals. By
contact Steve D. Morris at (202) 512-3841 or applying this lesson learned to current and future emergency food assistance
morriss@gao.gov. programs, USDA would have greater assurance that it can assess program
effectiveness even when it must move quickly in implementing a program.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter 1
Background 4
USDA Collected Data on the Food Box Program but Did Not
Systematically Collect Data Related to Two Key Program Goals 10
Conclusions 24
Recommendation for Executive Action 25
Agency Comments 25
Appendix I Delivery of Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations, by County 29
Appendix II Delivery of Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations in High-Poverty
Counties, by State 32
Appendix III Summary of Food Box Delivery Data, by State 35
Appendix IV Number of Contractors That Participated in the Food Box Program 38
Appendix V Price and Number of Food Boxes, by Type 44
Appendix VI Delivery of Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations, by Type and
State 47
Appendix VII Delivery of Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations per 1,000
Estimated Persons, by State 51
Appendix VIII USDA’s Lessons Learned from the Food Box Program 53
Page i GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56
Related GAO Products 57
Tables
Table 1: Number of Contractors that Participated in One or
Multiple Rounds of USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program 15
Table 2: Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Contract Obligations for
USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by
Round 17
Table 3: Price for Combination Food Boxes in USDA’s Farmers to
Families Food Box Program, by Round 18
Table 4: Number of Food Boxes Specified in USDA’s Farmers to
Families Food Box Program Contracts and Delivered by
Contractors to Recipient Organizations, by Round 19
Table 5: Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations per
State for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program,
Rounds 1–5 35
Table 6: Number of Contractors That Participated in USDA’s
Farmers to Families Food Box Program Located in Each
State, Rounds 1–5 39
Table 7: Number of Contractors That Participated in USDA’s
Farmers to Families Food Box Program That Delivered
Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations, by State and
Round 41
Table 8: Price per Food Box, by Type, for USDA’s Farmers to
Families Food Box Program, by Round 44
Figures
Figure 1: Congressionally Appropriated Funding Amounts and
USDA Obligations and Purchases (Expenditures) for
USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program 5
Figure 2: Examples of Food Boxes for USDA’s Farmers to
Families Food Box Program 7
Figure 3: Number of Counties in Which Contractors Delivered
Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations for USDA’s
Farmers to Families Food Box Program, Rounds 1–5 12
Page ii GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Figure 4: Number of High-Poverty Counties in Which Contractors
Delivered Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations for
USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, Rounds
1–5 13
Figure 5: Number of Contractors That Participated in USDA’s
Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by Round 16
Figure 6: Map Showing Number of Food Boxes Delivered to
Recipient Organizations per County for USDA’s Farmers
to Families Food Box Program, Rounds 1–5 30
Figure 7: Map Showing Number of Food Boxes Delivered to
Recipient Organizations per 1,000 Estimated Persons, by
County, for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, Rounds 1–5 31
Figure 8: Number of Counties in Which Contractors Delivered and
Did Not Deliver Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations
for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by
State, Rounds 1–5 33
Figure 9: Number of High-Poverty Counties in Which Contractors
Delivered and Did Not Deliver Food Boxes to Recipient
Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, by State, Rounds 1–5 34
Figure 10: Number and Type of Food Boxes Delivered to
Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families
Food Box Program, Rounds 1–5 46
Figure 11: Number of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient
Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, by State, Rounds 1–5 48
Figure 12: Number and Type of Food Boxes Delivered to
Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families
Food Box Program, by State, Rounds 1–5 50
Figure 13: Number of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient
Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, per 1,000 Estimated Persons, by State, Rounds
1–5 52
Page iii GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Abbreviations
AMS Agricultural Marketing Service
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
Food Box Program Farmers to Families Food Box Program
FNS Food and Nutrition Service
OMB Office of Management and Budget
TEFAP The Emergency Food Assistance Program
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page iv GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Letter
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
September 8, 2021
Congressional Committees
As part of its response to disruptions in the food supply chain caused by
the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in May 2020, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program (Food Box Program). 1 For this program—
which ran through May 31, 2021—USDA, through contractors, purchased
and delivered fresh fruits and vegetables, dairy, and meat products
across the country. The program’s goals included providing food to those
in need and supporting food distribution companies and domestic food
producers that could be affected by the disruptions. Six billion dollars in
congressional appropriations were directed to the program. 2
To implement the program, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
contracted with local, regional, and national distributors to purchase food
from domestic producers. 3 These contractors packaged the products into
family-sized boxes and transported the boxes to recipient organizations—
such as food banks, community and faith-based organizations, and other
nonprofits—that serve persons in need. Within weeks of its
implementation, the program had purchased and delivered millions of
food boxes across the U.S. and its territories, according to USDA officials.
The CARES Act includes a provision for us to conduct monitoring and
oversight of the use of funds made available to prepare for, respond to,
1Round 1 of the Food Box Program began on May 15, 2020.
2In March 2021, USDA announced plans to offer boxes of pre-packed, fresh produce
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)—known as TEFAP Fresh
Produce—until September 30, 2021.
3Throughout this report we refer to distributors as “contractors.” USDA also refers to them
as vendors. For rounds 1 and 2, all contractors were awarded contracts to deliver food
boxes. For rounds 3, 4, and 5 of the program, AMS established basic ordering
agreements with contractors. A basic ordering agreement describes terms applying to
future orders between the parties. Once basic ordering agreements were established,
contractors could compete to fulfill specific requirements for the program.
Page 1 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. 4 This report examines the
extent to which USDA collected and analyzed data on the Food Box
Program, including data necessary to assess achievement of program
goals.
To address this objective, we reviewed federal laws; analyzed
departmental guidance and documents, and information on USDA’s
website; and we interviewed USDA officials. We also reviewed and
analyzed data on obligations, expenditures, and various aspects of
contractors and recipient organizations contained in USDA’s Web-Based
Supply Chain Management database as of June 4, 2021. These data
covered the duration of the program from May 15, 2020 through when the
program ended, on May 31, 2021. 5
We reviewed these data for completeness, accuracy, and reliability by
electronically testing or reviewing them for missing elements,
inconsistencies, errors, and outliers; and by reviewing related
documentation. We also interviewed USDA officials about their data
system as it relates to data quality and to clarify any potential issues as
we reviewed the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of describing program spending and identifying
contractors that participated in the program, contract obligations, and
number of food boxes delivered. We also determined that some data
fields for recipient organizations were sufficiently reliable for the purpose
of identifying the ZIP codes and counties in which these organizations
were located. However, we found the data were unreliable for the
purpose of identifying recipient organizations by name and type of entity
because of inconsistencies in how organization names were entered into
USDA’s database, and because unique identifiers were not used. We
discuss these data issues later in this report.
We also analyzed the extent to which USDA collected and analyzed data
to assess its progress toward program goals. We compared USDA’s data
4Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 19010(b), 134 Stat. 281, 580 (2020). We regularly issue
government-wide reports on the federal response to COVID-19. For the latest report, see
GAO, COVID-19: Continued Attention Needed to Enhance Federal Preparedness,
Response, Service Delivery, and Program Integrity, GAO-21-551 (Washington, D.C.: July
19, 2021). Our next government-wide report will be issued in October 2021 and will be
available on GAO’s website at https://www.gao.gov/coronavirus.
5Although the program ended on May 31, 2021, contractors were able to continue
entering data into USDA’s supply chain management database.
Page 2 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
collection and analysis efforts against the April 2020 Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on supplemental funding
provided in response to COVID-19, an objective in USDA’s 2018–2022
Strategic Plan related to improving data collection and utilization, 6 and
USDA’s documentation of lessons learned during implementation of the
program. We did not comprehensively review all of USDA’s lessons
learned and its efforts to implement them.
To analyze USDA’s performance in meeting its secondary goal of
targeting economically distressed communities, we allocated ZIP codes in
recipient addresses to counties, and then assessed food box deliveries to
counties in which an estimated 20 percent of the population lives in
poverty, according to 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates for those counties. 7 The U.S. Census Bureau uses the 20
percent threshold to define Census tracts as “poverty areas.” We applied
this threshold to USDA data by county. We conducted all analyses,
including matching of ZIP code-level recipient address data to counties,
using SAS software. 8
We conducted this performance audit from September 2020 to
September 2021 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
6Office of Management and Budget, “Implementation Guidance for Supplemental Funding
Provided in Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19),” OMB Memorandum
M-20-21 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 2020), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA
Strategic Plan 2018-2022 (May 2018).
7U.S. Census Bureau, 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
accessed Nov. 3, 2020,
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/summary_file/2019/data/5_year_entire_sf
/.
8Copyright © [2016] SAS Institute Inc. SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or
service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North
Carolina.
Page 3 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Background
Program Funding Several pieces of legislation appropriated the funds that USDA made
available to the Food Box Program. 9 USDA implemented the program in
five rounds, and each round ran for about 1 to 4 months. Figure 1 shows
funding sources and amounts, obligations, and purchases (expenditures)
for the five rounds of the program.
9The Families First Coronavirus Response Act provided “such amounts as are necessary”
for the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase commodities for emergency distribution in the
United States during a public health emergency designation during fiscal year 2020. Pub.
L. No. 116-127, div. A, tit. I, §1101(g) and (i), 134 Stat. 178, 180 (2020). The Office of
Management and Budget apportioned the following amounts for the Food Box Program
from the Families First Coronavirus Response Act: (1) $3 billion in May 2020, and (2) an
additional $1 billion in September 2020. The CARES Act provided a $9.5 billion
appropriation to the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture for coronavirus relief. CARES
Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, div. B, tit. I, 134 Stat. 281, 505 (2020). In October 2020, the
Office of Management and Budget apportioned $0.5 billion of that amount for the Food
Box Program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, appropriated $11.2 billion to
the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture for coronavirus relief. Pub. L. No. 116-260, div.
N, tit. VII, subtit. B, ch. 1, § 751, 134 Stat. 1182, 2105 (2020). In January 2021, the Office
of Management and Budget apportioned $1.5 billion for the Food Box Program.
Page 4 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Figure 1: Congressionally Appropriated Funding Amounts and USDA Obligations and Purchases (Expenditures) for USDA’s
Farmers to Families Food Box Program
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
According to USDA, the department determines purchases (or expenditures) by the payments it
makes on invoices it receives from contractors. As such, purchases (or expenditures) can be lower
than obligations because of the time it takes for USDA to receive and process invoices.
a
Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Pub. L. No. 116-127, div. A, tit. I, §1101(g) and (i), 134
Stat. 178, 180 (2020).
b
The CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, div. B, tit. I, 134 Stat. 281, 505 (2020).
c
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. VII, subtit. B, ch. 1, § 751,
134 Stat. 1182, 2105 (2020).
Program Goals and According to USDA officials and documentation, the department rapidly
Description implemented the Food Box Program to address three critical needs
USDA identified that were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic:
Page 5 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
1. providing food to those in need by delivering food boxes to recipient
organizations,
2. helping local and regional companies (contractors) that supply and
distribute goods to retain jobs that could be lost as a result of
institutional closures, and
3. providing alternative outlets for domestic producers faced with
declining demand because of institutional closures. 10
These three critical needs comprised the key goals of the program,
according to USDA officials and program documentation. USDA later
added three secondary goals. Two of these secondary goals related to
providing food to those in need: (1) delivering food boxes to recipient
organizations in every county in the United States, 11 and (2) targeting
economically distressed communities. 12 The third, related to supporting
domestic producers, focused on ensuring that contractors included small
farming operations in their food purchases. 13
The Food Box Program included five types of food boxes—fresh fruit and
vegetables; milk; dairy; precooked meat; and combination boxes, which
10USDA officials said that the department did not provide a definition of producers as it
related to the Food Box Program. However, officials said the term generally refers to
farmers, ranchers, dairy operators, and fishers.
11USDA’s January 2021 preliminary report on the Food Box Program, issued after the
fourth round, stated that a goal of the Food Box Program was to deliver food boxes to
every county in the United States.
12The communities USDA targeted are Opportunity Zones, which are economically
distressed communities that may be eligible for certain tax incentives. The Opportunity
Zones designation was created by Congress in 2017. The designation incentivized
investments in low-income neighborhoods. Pub. L. No. 115-97, § 13823, 131 Stat. 2054,
2183 (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 1400Z-1). USDA also began basing the amount of food each
state received on the total number of unemployed persons and the number of people with
incomes below the poverty level in the state, according to USDA officials.
13For the Food Box Program, USDA defined small farming operations as those servicing
local and regional interests and farmers markets.
Page 6 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
had a mix of fruit and vegetables, milk, dairy, and precooked meat, eggs,
or egg products. 14 (See fig. 2 for photos of examples.)
Figure 2: Examples of Food Boxes for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program
After the first two rounds of the program, USDA made changes to the
program on the basis of feedback from stakeholders. Such changes
included adding to its solicitations a focus on delivering food to
economically distressed communities; adding a requirement that
contractors cover all costs for purchasing and delivering food boxes,
including the “last mile,” or delivery to the recipient organization; 15
awarding contracts only for combination boxes to ensure that food boxes
14In its solicitations for the program, USDA distinguished between fluid milk (milk) and
dairy products such as cheese, butter, and sour cream (dairy). Also, in its solicitations for
rounds 1 and 2, USDA provided examples of products permitted in the food boxes, but did
not require specific contents. Starting in round 3, USDA indicated that it would purchase
only combination boxes that weighed from 30 to 40 pounds and contained: (1) 10–12
pounds of fresh fruit and vegetables, including 2-4 pounds of root vegetables (e.g.,
potatoes, yams, and carrots), 2–4 pounds of fruits with longer storage life (e.g., citrus,
apples, and melons), and one or two locally grown fruit or vegetable items, as available;
(2) 5–6 pounds at least two dairy items, such as cheese, butter, and sour cream; (3) 5–6
pounds of at least two pre-cooked meat items but not more than 1 pound of lunch meat;
and (4) at least 10 pounds of meat and dairy combined.
15According to USDA, the “last mile” is defined as the final movement of goods from a
transportation or distribution hub to the final delivery destination—the individual user of the
food box. For purposes of this report, the individual user is the recipient organization, not
the individual who will consume the food.
Page 7 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
contained a variety of products; and streamlining the contracting
process. 16
Agency Roles Within USDA, AMS generally has been responsible for commodity
procurement (solicitations, awards, and contract management). It typically
coordinates with other USDA agencies, such as the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS), that provide food assistance and work with food banks
and schools. According to USDA officials, AMS implemented the Food
Box Program without assistance from FNS because FNS officials had
concerns about the large volume of food and rapid time frames for
program implementation. As a result, according to USDA officials, AMS
worked directly with contractors to deliver food boxes to recipient
organizations. The Food Box Program was the first program in which
AMS worked directly with contractors to deliver food, according to
department officials.
USDA’s Efforts Following In March 2021, USDA announced its intent to continue to provide certain
the Food Box Program types of food boxes starting on June 1, 2021. Specifically, USDA reported
it would use pandemic assistance funding to purchase fresh produce to
be offered in boxes to those in need through the Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP), administered by FNS in coordination with
AMS. 17 USDA also announced in April 2021 that AMS would implement
the new Dairy Donation Program, through which dairy cooperatives and
processors are reimbursed for their donations of dairy products to
nonprofit organizations that distribute food to people in need. 18 In June
2021, USDA announced that through TEFAP it would spend up to $1
billion to purchase food from producers and assist food banks. 19
16As we reported in March 2021, USDA streamlined its contracting process for rounds 3,
4, and 5 by using basic ordering agreements. USDA established basic ordering
agreements with contractors, which then competed to fulfill specific requirements for the
Food Box Program. USDA officials said that the changes provided greater flexibility to
specify requirements as the program progressed.
17AMS helps administer TEFAP by managing food procurement through solicitations,
awards, and contract management.
18The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish the Dairy Donation Program. Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. VII, subtit. B, ch. 2,
§ 762, 134 Stat. 1182, 2111 (2020).
19According to USDA’s website, this effort is funded through the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4, ($500 million), and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (2020), ($500 million).
Page 8 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Prior GAO Work We have previously reported on the Food Box Program. 20 For example, in
September 2020, we reported that USDA’s implementation of the
program included some oversight and monitoring mechanisms but that
AMS did not conduct program reviews for the first two rounds of the
program. 21 We also reported that USDA did not have plans to evaluate
the program to identify successes, challenges, and lessons learned. We
recommended that USDA evaluate the Food Box Program after the third
round. USDA did not do so after the third round ended on October 31,
2020, because, according to officials, they did not have time to conduct
the review before implementing the next round. However, in January
2021, in response to a requirement in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021, USDA conducted a preliminary review of the program after the
fourth round and before issuing solicitations for the fifth round. 22 Among
the lessons learned in its review, USDA found that the program did not
collect and analyze data on job retention and producers. USDA also
developed a briefing document for the incoming administration that
included potential improvements for any future rounds or similar
programs.
20GAO, COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response and Recovery Efforts,
GAO-20-625 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2020); Agriculture Spending: Opportunities
Exist for USDA to Identify Successes and Challenges of the Farmers to Families Food
Box Program to Inform Future Efforts, GAO-20-711R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 2020);
COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely and Concerted Actions,
GAO-20-701 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2020); COVID-19: Sustained Federal Action Is
Crucial as Pandemic Enters Its Second Year, GAO-21-387 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31,
2021); and COVID-19 Contracting: Opportunities to Improve Practices to Assess
Prospective Vendors and Capture Lessons Learned, GAO-21-528 (Washington, D.C.: July
29, 2021). In our March 2021 report, we made two recommendations: that the Secretary
of Agriculture direct the Administrator of AMS to (1) issue guidance on the use of the
COVID-19 National Interest Action code for the Farmers to Families Food Box Program or
successor food distribution program; and (2) assess the contracting personnel needed to
fully execute the program. As of August 2021, USDA had implemented the first
recommendation, but not the second.
21GAO-20-711R.
22PL 116-260, div. N, tit. VII, subtit. B, ch. 1, § 751, 134 Stat. 1182, 2107.
Page 9 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
USDA collected large amounts of data about its Food Box Program, but it
USDA Collected Data did not collect and analyze data necessary to assess the program’s
on the Food Box performance in meeting two of its three key program goals. USDA
analyzed the various data on deliveries to recipient organizations and
Program but Did Not determined that the Food Box Program met its key goal of providing food
Systematically Collect to those in need. Our additional analyses of USDA’s county-level data
also suggest that USDA largely met this key goal. However, we found that
Data Related to Two USDA did not collect and analyze the data necessary to assess the
Key Program Goals program’s performance in achieving its other two key goals, which related
to helping contractors retain jobs and producers deal with decreasing
demand for their products. USDA officials told us that they were focused
on implementing the program under tight time frames and did not collect
and analyze some data necessary to assess program performance—this
was a key lesson learned for the department after round 4 of the program.
Food Box Delivery Data USDA and GAO analyses of delivery data suggest the Food Box Program
Suggest the Program largely met its goal to provide food to those in need. Specifically, USDA
analyzed data on food box deliveries to track the number of food boxes
Largely Met Its Goal to
delivered to recipient organizations in each state. It determined from this
Provide Food to Those in analysis that the program met its goal of providing food to those in need.
Need USDA analyzed data it collected from contractors that included where the
contractors delivered food boxes to primary recipient organizations, such
as food banks. 23 These primary recipient organizations could either
provide the food boxes directly to individuals or distribute food boxes to
other organizations in different locations to provide to individuals. 24 USDA
determined delivery using the location of the primary recipient
organization, rather than the final destination of the boxes (i.e., the
individuals who received the boxes for consumption).
USDA posted some data—that is, the total number of food boxes that
contractors delivered across the country—on its public website. It also
analyzed the total number of food boxes delivered to each county within
each state. USDA officials told us that the department’s analyses of state-
and county-level data determined that the program delivered millions of
food boxes to all 50 states; Washington, D.C.; and the U.S. territories of
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. According to these
23Specifically, USDA obtained recipient organization names and locations, such as ZIP
codes, from contractors that entered these data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
24These secondary organizations could be in different locations than where the food
boxes were delivered. For example, food banks in Texas and Ohio distributed food boxes
to other organizations in other counties in the state.
Page 10 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
officials, the department viewed the breadth of food deliveries to recipient
organizations—across all 50 states; Washington, D.C.; and territories—as
suggesting that the program met its goal of providing food to those in
need.
Our analysis of the delivery data, which included assessing deliveries to
high-poverty counties, suggests that the Food Box Program met USDA’s
secondary goals related to providing food to those in need. 25 Specifically,
our analysis of county-level data on primary recipient organizations
allowed us to determine the extent to which the program met the two
secondary goals related to providing food to those in need: (1) delivering
food boxes to every county in the United States 26 and (2) targeting
economically distressed communities. 27 We analyzed data as of June 4,
2021, and found that contractors delivered millions of boxes of food to
recipient organizations distributed across most U.S. counties, including
nearly all high-poverty counties, or counties in which 20 percent or more
of the population lives in poverty. 28 Our analysis of these data suggests
that USDA largely met its key goal of providing food to those in need by
25We analyzed county-level delivery data because although USDA analyzed its data at the
county level, it did not include this analysis in its response to our questions about whether
it met its goal of providing food to those in need.
26USDA’s January 2021 preliminary report on the Food Box Program, issued after the
fourth round, stated that a goal of the Food Box Program was to deliver food boxes to
every county in the United States.
27As described above, as part of a programmatic change made between the second and
third rounds, USDA based the amount of food each state received on the total number of
unemployed persons and the number of people with incomes below the poverty level in
the state. Additionally, the communities that USDA targeted are Opportunity Zones, which
are economically distressed communities that may be eligible for certain tax incentives.
For more information about these Opportunity Zones, see www.irs.gov/credits-
deductions/businesses/opportunity-zones.
28For the purpose of characterizing the extent of distribution of food boxes across counties
in this report, “most” represents at least 75 percent, and “nearly all” represents at least 85
percent. For the purpose of our analysis, we considered food box deliveries to recipient
organizations in at least 75 percent of counties and at least 85 percent of high-poverty
counties as the threshold for determining whether USDA largely met its goal of providing
food to those in need. For information on how we analyzed USDA’s performance in
meeting its secondary goal of targeting economically distressed communities, see our
methodology section.
Page 11 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
delivering food boxes to recipient organizations in most U.S. counties,
including nearly all high-poverty counties. 29
More specifically, we found that across the five rounds, contractors
delivered more than 176 million food boxes to primary recipient
organizations in 2,507 out of the 3,220 counties (77.9 percent) in the U.S.
(see fig. 3). 30 However, as described above, these primary recipient
organizations could distribute food boxes to individuals or other
organizations in different locations, including different counties. As a
result, the number of counties in which food boxes were distributed to
individuals may be higher. (For more information about deliveries per
county, see apps. I and II.) In a written response to our questions about
why contractors may not have delivered food boxes to every county,
USDA officials cited challenges including resource constraints that
contractors experienced, such as a lack of trucks and personnel to deliver
the boxes.
Figure 3: Number of Counties in Which Contractors Delivered Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program,
Rounds 1–5
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
29Because USDA did not track food box deliveries to secondary recipient organizations or
final recipients (e.g., individual families), we chose to use data on deliveries to primary
recipient organizations and high-poverty counties to assess delivery performance.
30Our analysis included counties and entities that the U.S. Census Bureau considered
equivalent to counties, such as parishes in Louisiana; boroughs, municipalities, and others
in Alaska; and incorporated places in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia that are
independent of any county, which are known as independent cities. Of the 713 counties in
the U.S. in which contractors did not deliver food boxes, 114 are in Texas and 82 are in
Virginia; the remaining counties are distributed across the states.
Page 12 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Our analysis included counties and entities that the U.S. Census Bureau considered equivalent to
counties, such as parishes in Louisiana; boroughs, municipalities, and others in Alaska; and
incorporated places in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia that are independent of any county,
which are known as independent cities.
Recipient organizations could provide the food boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food
boxes to other organizations for them to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient organizations
could be located in different locations than where the food boxes were delivered. As a result, the
number of counties in which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
In addition, contractors delivered food boxes to recipient organizations in
345 of the 386 high-poverty counties (89.4 percent) (see fig. 4). For more
information about food deliveries in high-poverty counties, see appendix
II. For summary information about food box deliveries at the state and
county levels, see appendix III.
Figure 4: Number of High-Poverty Counties in Which Contractors Delivered Food
Boxes to Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, Rounds 1–5
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Our analysis included counties and entities that the U.S. Census Bureau considered equivalent to
counties, such as parishes in Louisiana; boroughs, municipalities, and others in Alaska; and
incorporated places in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia that are independent of any county,
which are known as independent cities.
The Census Bureau uses the 20 percent threshold to define Census tracts as “poverty areas.” We
applied this threshold to USDA data by county. We refer to these counties as high-poverty counties.
Recipient organizations may distribute food boxes to other organizations that then provide the food to
individuals. Those organizations could be in different locations, including different counties.
Therefore, the number of counties in which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
However, because of the way the available data were stored in USDA’s
database, we were not able to reliably identify the type of recipient
organizations (e.g., food banks, faith-based organizations, or schools) to
which individual contractors delivered food boxes or how many food
Page 13 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
boxes each recipient organization received. We discussed our findings
with USDA officials, who said that USDA relied on contractors, many of
which were unfamiliar with the department’s database, to collect recipient
organization data and input these data. According to the officials, this
reliance resulted in a lack of consistency across some of the entries. The
officials agreed that having data about the type of recipient organizations
may have been helpful to better understand the program’s progress
toward its goal of providing for persons in need.
USDA Collected Large
Amounts of Data on
Contractors but Not on
Job Retention
USDA Data on Contractors USDA collected a large amount of data related to contractors that
Allowed GAO to Analyze enabled us to analyze and describe contractor participation, contract
Aspects of the Program obligations, prices of individual food boxes from different contractors, and
food box delivery rates. 31
Contractor participation. In total, 243 contractors participated in at least
one of the five rounds of the Food Box Program. 32 The majority of
contractors (160) participated in two rounds of the program (see table
1). 33
31We analyzed these and other data for deliveries made from May 15, 2020, through May
31, 2021. The data we received from USDA are as of June 4, 2021, because although the
program ended on May 31, 2021, contractors could still input data into USDA’s database
past that date.
32Throughout this report, a contractor is considered participating in the program if AMS
awarded the contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a basic ordering
agreement with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at least one
contract in rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program.
33The data we received from USDA and analyzed include one contractor to which USDA
did not intend to provide a contract to deliver food boxes, but mistakenly did so because
the contractor was miscoded in USDA’s internal tracking mechanism for the program.
According to USDA officials, the contractor delivered some food boxes before USDA
recognized the mistake and terminated the contract for convenience of the government.
The number of food boxes this vendor delivered does not appear in the data we include in
this report.
Page 14 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Table 1: Number of Contractors that Participated in One or Multiple Rounds of
USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program
Number of contractors that participated in one round of the program 32
Number of contractors that participated in two rounds of the program 160
Number of contractors that participated in three rounds of the program 32
Number of contractors that participated in four rounds of the program 16
Number of contractors that participated in all five rounds of the program 3
Total number of contractors that participated in the program 243
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) information. | GAO-21-353
Notes: In this table, a contractor is considered participating in the program if AMS awarded the
contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a basic ordering agreement with the
contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at least one contract in rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the
program.
This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31, 2021,
contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management database.
Figure 5 shows the number of contractors that participated in each of the
five rounds and contractor participation across the rounds. As the figure
shows, most of the contractors that participated in round 1 also
participated in round 2, but many of these contractors did not participate
in subsequent rounds. The total number of contractors decreased after
round 2. According to USDA’s preliminary review from January 2021,
after round 2 of the program USDA required contractors that could deliver
food boxes to larger geographic areas and prioritized proposals that also
offered the lowest prices. As a result, the total number of contractors
decreased because fewer contractors were able to meet those
requirements. For more information on contractors, see appendix IV.
Page 15 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Figure 5: Number of Contractors That Participated in USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by Round
Note: A total of 243 contractors participated in at least one of the five rounds of the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program. In total, 32 contractors participated in only one round of the program,
and 211 contractors participated in multiple rounds of the program. In this table, a contractor is
considered participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) awarded the
contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a basic ordering agreement with the
contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at least one contract in rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the
program.
Contract obligations. According to our analysis, across the five rounds,
the largest contract obligation to a contractor was $310 million and the
smallest was $7,700. 34 The mean contract obligation across all five
34Contract obligation refers to a definite commitment under a contract that creates a legal
liability of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or received. To
calculate the total amount to a contractor, we summed the contract obligations within and
across the rounds in which that contractor participated. For example, the largest contract
obligation was the total amount obligated to the contractor in round 3 and round 5 of the
program because the contractor only participated in those rounds.
Page 16 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
rounds was $24.2 million per contractor, and the round with the largest
mean amount was round 5 with a mean contract obligation of $39.4
million. Table 2 shows the maximum, minimum, mean, and total contract
obligations for each round of the program.
Table 2: Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Contract Obligations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by Round
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Rounds 1–5
Maximum obligated $107.0 m $135.8 m $86.0 m $68.6 m $224.2 m $310.2 m
amount
Minimum obligated $1,400 $6,300 $47,481 $206,164 $1.7 m $7,700
amount
Mean obligated $5.6 m $9.5 m $17.0 m $15.7 m $39.4 m $24.2 m
amount
Total contract $1.11 billion $1.95 billion $0.92 billion $0.49 billion $1.42 billion $5.88 billion
obligations
Number of 200 206 54 31 36 243
contractors
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) information. | GAO-21-353
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Round 1 of the program ran from May 15 through June 30, 2020; Round 2, July 1 through September
18, 2020; Round 3, September 22 through October 31, 2020; Round 4, November 1 through
December 31, 2020; and Round 5, January 1 through May 31, 2021.
To calculate the total amount obligated to a contractor, we summed the contract obligations within
and across the rounds in which that contractor participated. For example, the largest contract
obligation was the total amount obligated to the contractor in rounds 3 and 5 of the program because
the contractor only participated in those rounds. Across the five rounds, the largest amount obligated
to a contractor was $310 million and the smallest was $7,700.
Of the 243 contractors who participated in the program, 21 contractors, or
less than 10 percent, received more than 50 percent of the program’s
total obligations. Specifically, across all five rounds of the program, USDA
obligated a total of about $3 billion to these 21 contractors, with a mean
obligated amount of about $142 million. These 21 contractors collectively
delivered boxes in all 50 states; Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA provided a written response about the
concentration of contract obligations provided to these contractors. In this
response, USDA officials stated that price was one of the criteria in the
department’s competitive bidding process in rounds 3 through 5. As a
result, USDA awarded contracts to the lowest bidders, which meant that
the contractors in these rounds were those that were able to outbid other
contractors.
Page 17 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Price of individual food boxes. The price for individual food boxes
varied widely among contractors. 35 For example, precooked meat boxes
ranged from $17.65 to $180 each. According to USDA officials, the
differences in the prices contractors offered in their proposals were based
on box content and size (weight), 36 delivery locations, and other factors.
For example, USDA officials said that some states, such as Alaska,
required higher transportation costs, which were included in the price per
food box. Table 3 shows the range in prices for combination food boxes.
For more information about the price ranges for the various types of
individual food boxes, see appendix V.
Table 3: Price for Combination Food Boxes in USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by Round
Price Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
Maximum $150.00 $150.00 $99.00 $64.95 $105.00
Minimum $10.30 $10.30 $34.95 $32.61 $27.79
Mean $63.09 $63.25 $45.23 $38.89 $31.90
Median $76.05 $67.18 $44.39 $38.90 $31.25
Contract obligations $258,797,740 $476,266,382 $916,478,455 $485,648,656 $1,416,651,915
Number of food boxes 4,102,321 7,529,684 20,260,689 12,488,297 44,402,739
specified in contracts
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data. | GAO-21-353
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Round 1 of the program ran from May 15 through June 30, 2020; Round 2, July 1 through September
18, 2020; Round 3, September 22 through October 31, 2020; Round 4, November 1 through
December 31, 2020; and Round 5, January 1 through May 31, 2021.
Maximum and minimum prices per food box described in this table reflect the highest and lowest
prices, respectively, offered by contractors in their proposals, not established maximum or minimum
allowable prices.
The mean and median prices in this table refer to the mean and median prices of the food boxes
when weighted by the number of food boxes in each contract. The mean and median price of the food
boxes we reported in March 2021 (GAO-21-387) refer to those prices per contract. In that report, we
used “cost” rather than “price” as we do here.
35Prices per individual food boxes, the maximum number of food boxes as identified in the
contract at that price, and the number of food boxes delivered were included in the data
set that USDA provided to GAO.
36As noted earlier, the first two rounds of the Food Box Program included five types of
food boxes—fresh fruit and vegetables; milk; dairy; precooked meat; and combination
boxes, which had a mix of fruit and vegetables, milk, dairy, and precooked meat, eggs, or
egg products. After round two, USDA provided contracts only for combination boxes.
Page 18 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Food box delivery rates. USDA provided contracts based on the
maximum number of boxes that contractors indicated they could deliver to
recipient organizations during the contract’s performance period. The
data that USDA collected provide information on the delivery rate—that is,
the percentage of boxes contractors delivered out of the maximum
number of boxes specified in the contracts. According to USDA, the
contract value is the maximum amount USDA will pay the contractor for
delivering the maximum number of food boxes specified in the contract.
USDA only made payments to contractors based on invoices the
contractors submitted to the department for delivered food boxes. As
such, contractors were not paid for food boxes they did not deliver.
Contractors had delivered more than 176 million food boxes to recipient
organizations by the time the program ended, on May 31, 2021,
according to our analysis of USDA data as of June 4, 2021. The highest
number of deliveries occurred in round 2 (66 million boxes), between July
1 and September 18, 2020, according to our analysis of USDA data.
Overall, across the five rounds, participating contractors delivered nearly
83 percent of the maximum amount of food boxes specified in their
contracts with USDA, through May 31, 2021. Delivery rates generally
increased over time. For example, the contractors participating in round 1
delivered about 69 percent of boxes specified in their contracts. In
comparison, the contractors participating in round 5 delivered 97 percent
of the boxes specified in their contracts. Table 4 shows the delivery rates
for each round.
Table 4: Number of Food Boxes Specified in USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program Contracts and Delivered by Contractors to Recipient Organizations, by
Round
Number of food boxes Number of food Delivery rate
Round specified in the contracts boxes delivered (percent)
Round 1 52,214,517 35,756,182 68.5
Round 2 83,446,850 66,075,880 79.2
Round 3 20,260,689 18,929,999 93.4
Round 4 12,488,297 12,465,712 99.8
Round 5 44,402,739 43,176,144 97.2
Total 212,813,092 176,403,917 82.9
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) information. | GAO-21-353
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Page 19 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Round 1 of the program ran from May 15 through June 30, 2020; Round 2, July 1 through September
18, 2020; Round 3, September 22 through October 31, 2020; Round 4, November 1 through
December 31, 2020; and Round 5, January 1 through May 31, 2021.
The delivery rate is the percentage of boxes contractors delivered of the maximum number of food
boxes specified by their contracts.
Through our analysis of the data, we were able to identify additional
characteristics of delivery, including the total number of food boxes
delivered to recipient organizations by state and territory, and by type
(produce, dairy, or meat, for example), and food boxes delivered per
1,000 estimated persons in each state. Appendixes VI and VII present our
analysis and description of these characteristics.
USDA Did Not Systematically USDA did not systematically collect and analyze data from contractors
Collect Data to Assess Job that would allow it to quantitatively assess the program’s performance
Retention related to its key program goal of helping contractors with job retention.
For example, USDA did not collect and analyze data before and after
program implementation that would allow it to assess the number of jobs
contractors expected to lose but were able to retain because of their
participation in the program. USDA officials said that they did not collect
data on job retention because they were not required to do so and they
did not have time to build new data fields into the existing database to
collect such information.
However, USDA stated that, according to anecdotal information
department staff collected, contractors that participated in rounds 1 and 2
of the Food Box Program experienced fewer job losses than they
otherwise would have without the program. 37 The review also stated that,
according to this same anecdotal information, in some cases contractors
hired additional staff to meet the demands of the program, and that some
smaller contractors who did not participate in the third or subsequent
rounds struggled to maintain some of the jobs they were able to retain by
participating in rounds 1 and 2.
USDA Did Not USDA did not systematically collect and analyze data about producers
Systematically Collect and necessary to assess the extent to which the Food Box Program achieved
Analyze Data on the Goal
of Supporting Producers
37U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Farmers to Families Food Box Preliminary
Review (Washington, D.C.: January 2021).
Page 20 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
its goal of supporting producers. 38 We reviewed data from USDA’s supply
chain management database and did not identify any data about
producers that supplied food for the program. USDA officials could not
quantify for us the extent to which the program supported producers. For
example, they could not provide data such as the number or category of
producers, producer demographics (e.g., locally or minority-owned) or the
size of the farming operation (e.g., small, medium, or large), to allow for
analysis related to the program’s key or secondary goals in this area.
USDA directed contractors to capture and document certain information
about producers; however, it did not compile or analyze this information
for program oversight purposes. For example:
• Starting in round 3, USDA required potential contractors to submit
certain information about subcontractors, which could include
producers, as part of their proposals. This information included the
business name, whether the business was a producer or other type of
subcontractor (e.g., wholesaler), the product or service to be provided,
and address.
• USDA required contractors to maintain, and provide upon USDA’s
request, documentation that could help it ensure that the food sourced
for the program originated from domestic producers. 39
According to department officials, USDA used this information solely to
help the department evaluate each contractor’s ability to deliver the food
boxes and support domestic producers. The department did not store this
information in a manner that would allow for analysis related to producers.
Systematically collecting and analyzing data about producers could have
enabled USDA to assess the extent to which the Food Box Program
supported various types of producers. Examples of such data may
include (1) category of producer (e.g., farmer, rancher, or specialty crop
producer); (2) size of operation; (3) type and quantity of product each
38USDA internal presentations and documents reflected the department’s goal to assist
producers who faced declining demand that, in some cases, led to food rotting in fields
and animals being euthanized. In addition, USDA officials told us that a main impetus of
the program was to support producers that faced declining demand because of
institutional closures and to help relieve economic harm to these producers.
39USDA also requires that contractors maintain this same information for its TEFAP Fresh
Produce program. In addition, the Dairy Donation Program requires donating cooperatives
and processors to maintain documents that demonstrate their eligibility, such as
documentation of the date of production and the amount paid for the raw milk, and states
that participants are subject to reviews or audits of the documents.
Page 21 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
producer provided; (4) the price the producer was paid; and (5) whether
the pandemic reduced demand and sales for the type and quantity of
products the producers provided for the program. Collecting data about
the category of the producer and size of the operation could have allowed
USDA to ensure that the program targeted and helped support small
farming operations, particularly since the department included this
characteristic in its criteria for evaluating contractors’ proposals to
participate in the program.
USDA officials provided multiple reasons for not systematically collecting
and analyzing data on producers that would have allowed the department
to assess performance in achieving its program goal. For example,
according to department officials, AMS typically does not require detailed
reporting about entities such as producers that source food into other
commodity purchase programs (e.g., TEFAP), and it did not build such
reporting requirements into the Food Box Program. The officials also told
us that USDA did not collect and analyze data for producers because of
the limited time the department had to implement the program.
Collecting and Analyzing USDA did not collect and analyze data necessary to assess the Food Box
Data Is a Key Lesson Program’s performance in achieving two of its three key goals. USDA
officials acknowledged prior to the program’s end that a key lesson
Learned
learned was the need to collect and analyze such data.
USDA collected and documented lessons learned during the
implementation of the Food Box Program through the following:
• A preliminary review of the program in January 2021. 40
• A briefing document in January 2021 for the incoming administration
that included potential improvements for any future rounds or similar
programs.
• A series of listening sessions in March 2021 with recipient
organizations, contractors, and producers and other stakeholders,
40U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Farmers to Families Food Box Preliminary
Review.
Page 22 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
such as food and agriculture industry organizations, to gather
feedback and to inform its decision about the future of the program. 41
In these documents and listening sessions, USDA identified a range of
lessons learned on various topics, including the need to collect and
analyze program data. Appendix VIII provides examples of key lessons
learned that USDA collected through these various sources.
As we previously discussed, USDA did not collect data on two of the
three key goals of the program, specifically, on supporting producers and
job retention, which limited the department’s ability to assess the
achievement of these goals. USDA officials acknowledged in the January
2021 preliminary review that not having these data was a key lesson
learned. 42 For example, not having data on producers, such as data on
the volume and prices of individual products sold to contractors, as well
as lack of data on job retention limited the department’s ability to address
congressional interest in this area of the program. USDA documented,
41Specifically, during the first two rounds of the program (May 15, 2020, through
September 18, 2020), industry organizations, recipient organizations, contractors, and
producers, raised concerns about various aspects of the program. These concerns
included AMS’s delays in reporting the awarding of certain large contracts, some
contractors’ inability to deliver at least 90 percent of their contracted food boxes, and
certain areas (e.g., rural) of the U.S. being underserved. In response to these concerns, in
August 2020, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis launched an
investigation into alleged mismanagement in the program.
42USDA made some programmatic changes based on feedback it obtained in March
2021. For example, after receiving feedback from stakeholders that the Food Box
Program could have done more to facilitate participation by local and regional producers
and socially disadvantaged producers, USDA announced plans to spend up to $400
million to establish cooperative agreements with state and tribal governments or other
local entities to purchase food from local and regional producers and socially
disadvantaged producers. Also, Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act of 1990, as amended, defines a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher as a
farmer or rancher who is a member of a socially disadvantaged group. Pub. L. No. 101-
624, § 2501, 104 Stat. 3359, 4062 (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a)). The
section goes on to define a socially disadvantaged group as a group whose members
have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of
a group without regard to their individual qualities. For a number of programs, USDA
provides program-specific definitions in regulation of whom these groups include. These
groups include American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asians, Blacks or African
Americans, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and for some
programs, women.
Page 23 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
but did not implement, this key lesson learned related to data collection
and analysis prior to the program’s end. 43
April 2020 OMB guidance on supplemental funding provided in response
to COVID-19 (M-20-21) expresses the importance of balancing speed
with transparency, and states that federal managers should use data and
evidence to achieve program goals. 44 Furthermore, USDA’s 2018–2022
Strategic Plan cites collection and analysis of accurate and reliable data
to make decisions, evaluate outcomes, and improve the effectiveness of
its programs. This plan also refers to accuracy and completeness as
being important aspects of data.
As described above, although the Food Box Program has ended, USDA
intends to continue to distribute certain types of food boxes and other
assistance through its other emergency food assistance programs, such
as TEFAP. 45 For example, USDA plans to, though TEFAP, provide boxes
of fresh produce and spend up to $1 billion to purchase food from
producers and assist food banks.
These activities provide USDA an opportunity to apply the key lesson
learned from the Food Box Program on collecting and analyzing data into
its current and future programs in order to collect necessary data to
assess how well its programs are meeting goals and to address
congressional interest. By applying this lesson learned to current and
future emergency food assistance programs, USDA would have greater
assurance that it can assess program effectiveness—and make program
changes as warranted—even when it must move quickly in implementing
a program. 46
As part of USDA’s response to disruptions caused by the COVID-19
Conclusions pandemic in 2020, the department rapidly set up the Food Box Program
43U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Farmers to Families Food Box Preliminary
Review.
44Office of Management and Budget, Implementation Guidance for Supplemental Funding
Provided in Response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
45For purposes of this report, emergency food assistance programs are food assistance
programs focused on emergencies or disasters, such as the Emergency Food Assistance
Program and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
46USDA identified several lessons learned from the Food Box Program but, for this report,
we are focused on the lesson learned related to USDA collecting and analyzing data to
assess performance against its goals.
Page 24 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
to achieve three key goals: provide food to those in need by delivering
food boxes to recipient organizations, help contractors that supply and
distribute goods to retain jobs that could be lost because of institutional
closures, and provide alternative outlets for producers faced with
declining demand because of institutional closures. Our analysis of USDA
data suggests that USDA broadly met its key goal of providing food to
those in need.
However, USDA did not collect data on two of the three key goals of the
program, specifically, on supporting producers and job retention, which
limited the department’s ability to assess the achievement of these goals.
USDA officials told us that they did not collect and analyze the data
necessary to assess the performance of the Food Box Program because
they did not have time to do so. USDA officials acknowledged, however,
that collecting and analyzing data was a key lesson learned from the
program. By applying the lesson learned about collecting and analyzing
necessary data to current and future emergency food assistance
programs, USDA would have greater assurance that it can assess
program effectiveness even when it must move quickly in implementing a
program.
The Secretary of Agriculture should take steps to apply the lesson
Recommendation for learned from the Food Box Program regarding collecting and analyzing
Executive Action data to assess program goals to current and future emergency food
assistance programs. (Recommendation 1)
We provided a draft of this report to USDA for review and comment. In an
Agency Comments email response, USDA agreed with our recommendation and stated that it
had no further comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at
https://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
Page 25 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix IX.
Steve D. Morris
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 26 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
List of Committees
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Vice Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Ranking Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate
The Honorable Patty Murray
Chair
The Honorable Richard Burr
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
United States Senate
The Honorable Gary C. Peters
Chairman
The Honorable Rob Portman
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro
Chair
The Honorable Kay Granger
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Republican Leader
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Page 27 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
The Honorable John Katko
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
Chairwoman
The Honorable James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Richard E. Neal
Chairman
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Republican Leader
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Page 28 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix I: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Appendix I: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by County
Recipient Organizations, by County
In total, the Farmers to Families Food Box Program (Food Box Program)
delivered food boxes to recipient organizations in 77.9 percent of the
counties (2,507 of 3,220) in the U.S by the time the program ended, on
May 31, 2021, according to our analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) data as of June 4, 2021. 1 During the five rounds of the Food Box
Program, contractors that participated in the program delivered food
boxes to all of the counties in eight states; Puerto Rico; and Washington,
D.C. 2 This represented a total of 92 counties for these eight states. The
eight states were Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont. For the remaining
42 states, contractors delivered boxes to about 77 percent of counties
overall (2,336 of 3,049 counties). Figure 6 shows the number of food
boxes delivered to recipient organizations per county, and figure 7 shows
the number of food boxes delivered per 1,000 persons, per county,
across the five rounds of the program.
1Our analysis included counties and entities that the U.S. Census Bureau considered
equivalent to counties, such as parishes in Louisiana; boroughs, municipalities, and others
in Alaska; and incorporated places in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia that are
independent of any county, which are known as independent cities. Recipient
organizations could provide the food boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food
boxes to other organizations for them to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient
organizations could be located in different locations than where the food boxes were
delivered, including different counties. As a result, the number of counties in which food
boxes were delivered may be higher.
2A contractor is considered participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) awarded the contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a
basic ordering agreement with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at
least one contract in rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program.
Page 29 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix I: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by County
Figure 6: Map Showing Number of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations per County for USDA’s Farmers to
Families Food Box Program, Rounds 1–5
Note: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Page 30 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix I: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by County
Figure 7: Map Showing Number of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations per 1,000 Estimated Persons, by County,
for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, Rounds 1–5
Note: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Page 31 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix II: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Appendix II: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations in High-Poverty
Recipient Organizations in High-Poverty
Counties, by State
Counties, by State
Contractors that participated in the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program delivered over 25 million food boxes to recipient organizations in
89 percent (345 of the 386) of the counties we identified in which 20
percent or more of the population lives in poverty, according to data as of
June 4, 2021. 1 We refer to these as high-poverty counties. 2 For example,
in California, contractors delivered food boxes to 57 of 58 counties,
including all five high-poverty counties. In Mississippi, contractors
delivered food boxes to 80 of 82 counties in the state, including 31 of 32
high-poverty counties.
The three states in which contractors delivered food boxes to the lowest
percentage of counties were Colorado, Virginia, and Wyoming. In
Colorado, contractors delivered food boxes to 21 of 64 counties (33
percent), including two of four counties categorized as high-poverty
counties. In Virginia, contractors delivered food boxes to 51 of 133
counties (38 percent), including three of 13 high-poverty counties. In
Wyoming, contractors delivered food boxes to 10 of 23 counties (44
percent). Figure 8 shows the number of counties in which contractors
delivered and did not deliver food boxes. Figure 9 shows the number of
high-poverty counties in which contractors delivered and did not deliver
food boxes.
1These results include data as of June 4, 2021. Although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) supply chain management database. A contractor is considered
participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) awarded the
contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a basic ordering agreement
with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at least one contract in
rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program. Also, recipient organizations could provide the food
boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food boxes to other organizations for them
to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient organizations could be located in different
locations than where the food boxes were delivered. As a result, the number of counties in
which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
2To analyze USDA’s performance in meeting its secondary goal of targeting economically
distressed communities, we allocated ZIP codes in recipient addresses to counties (see
our methodology section for more detail), then we assessed food box deliveries to
counties in which an estimated 20 percent or more of the population lives in poverty,
according to 2015–2019 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey for those
counties. The U.S. Census Bureau uses the 20 percent threshold to define Census tracts
as “poverty areas.” We applied this threshold to USDA data by county.
Page 32 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix II: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations in High-Poverty
Counties, by State
Figure 8: Number of Counties in Which Contractors Delivered and Did Not Deliver Food Boxes to Recipient Organizations for
USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by State, Rounds 1–5
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Recipient organizations could provide the food boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food
boxes to other organizations for them to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient organizations
could be located in different locations than where the food boxes were delivered. As a result, the
number of counties in which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
Page 33 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix II: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations in High-Poverty
Counties, by State
Figure 9: Number of High-Poverty Counties in Which Contractors Delivered and Did Not Deliver Food Boxes to Recipient
Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by State, Rounds 1–5
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
The U.S. Census Bureau uses the 20 percent threshold to define Census tracts as “poverty areas.”
We applied this threshold to USDA data by county.
Recipient organizations could provide the food boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food
boxes to other organizations for them to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient organizations
could be located in different locations than where the food boxes were delivered. As a result, the
number of counties in which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
States that appear without a bar indicates that those states do not include any high-poverty counties.
Page 34 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix III: Summary of Food Box Delivery
Appendix III: Summary of Food Box Delivery
Data, by State
Data, by State
Contractors delivered about 176 million food boxes to recipient
organizations by the time the Farmers to Families Food Box Program
ended, on May 31, 2021, according to our analysis of U.S. Department of
Agriculture data as of June 4, 2021. Table 5 provides a snapshot of food
box deliveries per state for the program.
Table 5: Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations per State for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program,
Rounds 1–5
Number of Number of Number of food
food boxes Number of high-poverty boxes delivered in
Number of food delivered per counties in Number of counties in high-poverty
boxes delivered 1,000 Number of which food high- which food counties
State or (% of all food boxes estimated counties boxes were poverty boxes were (% delivered in
territory delivered in U.S.) persons in state delivered countiesa delivered state)
AK 298,515 (0.2) 405 29 26 4 4 41,216 (13.8)
AL 3,124,030 (1.8) 641 67 63 12 11 459,776 (14.7)
AR 1,813,783 (1.0) 605 75 52 13 10 202,099 (11.1)
AZ 2,593,629 (1.5) 368 15 15 4 4 156,350 (6.0)
CA 21,490,015(12.2) 547 58 57 5 5 1,149,974 (5.4)
CO 1,827,155 (1.0) 326 64 21 4 2 1,296 (0.1)
CT 1,361,490 (0.8) 381 8 8 0 0b 0b
DC 425,046 (0.2) 614 1 1 0 0b 0b
DE 323,599 (0.2) 338 3 3 0 0b 0b
FL 16,590,673 (9.4) 794 67 60 9 8 750,444 (4.5)
GA 6,409,738 (3.6) 616 159 145 37 36 915,285 (14.3)
GU 160,287 (0.1) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
HI 755,284 (0.4) 531 5 4 0 0b 0b
ID 772,220 (0.4) 450 44 43 1 1 14,522 (1.9)
IL 7,477,407 (4.2) 586 102 82 2 2 29,721 (0.4)
IN 4,246,714 (2.4) 637 92 76 2 2 342,622 (8.1)
IA 988,720 (0.6) 315 99 95 0 0b 0b
KS 1,290,851 (0.7) 443 105 51 1 1 39,190 (3.0)
KY 1,986,309 (1.1) 446 120 91 35 26 829,089 (41.7)
LA 2,575,933 (1.5) 552 64 54 22 19 748,147 (29.0)
MA 2,076,916 (1.2) 303 14 13 0 0b 0b
MD 3,090,339 (1.8) 513 24 23 1 1 499,210 (16.2)
ME 415,195 (0.2) 311 16 16 0 0b 0b
MI 6,824,377 (3.9) 685 83 79 3 3 2,090,564 (30.6)
MN 1,651,819 (0.9) 297 87 61 1 1 19,168 (1.2)
MO 4,251,159 (2.4) 696 115 98 12 11 363,470 (8.5)
Page 35 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix III: Summary of Food Box Delivery
Data, by State
Number of Number of Number of food
food boxes Number of high-poverty boxes delivered in
Number of food delivered per counties in Number of counties in high-poverty
boxes delivered 1,000 Number of which food high- which food counties
State or (% of all food boxes estimated counties boxes were poverty boxes were (% delivered in
territory delivered in U.S.) persons in state delivered countiesa delivered state)
MS 2,800,421 (1.6) 938 82 80 32 31 1,397,689 (49.9)
MT 546,919 (0.3) 521 56 26 4 4 118,782 (21.7)
NC 4,734,042 (2.7) 461 100 91 11 11 846,030 (17.9)
ND 304,628 (0.2) 403 53 44 3 3 93,846 (30.8)
NE 884,252 (0.5) 462 93 64 1 1 12,001 (1.4)
NH 308,411 (0.2) 229 10 10 0 0b 0b
NJ 3,044,757(1.7) 343 21 21 0 0b 0b
NM 1,214,977 (0.7) 581 33 24 11 10 315,454 (26.0)
NV 1,230,965 (0.7) 414 17 15 0 0b 0b
NY 7,807,761 (4.4) 399 62 52 1 1 1,506,539 (19.3)
OH 4,925,546 (2.8) 423 88 80 2 2 193,904 (3.9)
OK 3,561,104 (2.0) 905 77 52 6 6 178,140 (5.0)
OR 1,956,208 (1.1) 474 36 27 0 0b 0b
PA 7,210,858 (4.1) 564 67 59 1 1 2,736,147 (37.9)
PR 4,895,782 (2.8) 1,475 78 78 78 78 4,895,782 (100.0)
RI 269,903 (0.2) 255 5 5 0 0b 0b
SC 1,895,643 (1.1) 378 46 45 8 8 328,048 (17.3)
SD 560,724 (0.3) 644 66 61 9 9 143,481 (25.6)
TN 2,991,569 (1.7) 446 95 77 7 5 39,106 (1.3)
TX 19,880,798 (11.3) 703 254 140 19 15 3,356,048 (16.9)
UT 694,178 (0.4) 224 29 16 1 1 94,295 (13.6)
VA 2,527,885 (1.4) 299 133 51 13 3 306,453 (12.1)
VI 65,813 (0.0) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
VT 484,066 (0.3) 775 14 14 0 0b 0b
WA 3,632,583 (2.1) 491 39 29 2 1 3,586 (0.1)
WV 650,718 (0.4) 358 55 36 8 7 120,735 (18.6)
WI 2,282,697 (1.3) 394 72 63 1 1 9,942 (0.4)
WY 219,226 (0.1) 377 23 10 0 0b 0b
Total 176,403,917 (100) 537c 3,220 2,507 386 345 25,348,151
Legend:
% - percentage
N/A – information not available
GU – Guam
PR – Puerto Rico
VI – U.S. Virgin Islands
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data. | GAO-21-353
Page 36 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix III: Summary of Food Box Delivery
Data, by State
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021 because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Our analysis included counties and entities that the U.S. Census Bureau considered equivalent to
counties, such as parishes in Louisiana; boroughs, municipalities, and others in Alaska; and
incorporated places in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia that are independent of any county,
which are known as independent cities.
Recipient organizations could provide the food boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food
boxes to other organizations for them to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient organizations
could be located in different locations than where the food boxes were delivered. As a result, the
number of counties in which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
a
The U.S. Census Bureau uses the 20 percent threshold to define Census tracts as “poverty areas.”
We applied this threshold to USDA data by county.
b
There were 0 counties in this state that met the U.S. Census Bureau’s threshold for poverty counties,
so there were no poverty counties in which contractors could deliver food boxes.
c
This includes the number of food boxes delivered to recipient organizations per 1,000 estimated
persons across all states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The U.S. territories of Guam and the
U.S. Virgin Islands were not included because the U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on their
populations for the American Community Survey, which we used in our data analysis.
Page 37 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Participated in the Food Box Program
Participated in the Food Box Program
The 243 contractors that participated in the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program (Food Box Program) were located in 45 states and Puerto Rico,
according to our analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data
as of June 4, 2021. 1 The states and territories in which contractors were
not located were Washington, D.C.; Guam; New Mexico; North Dakota;
South Dakota; West Virginia; Wyoming; and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 2
In any given round, contractors located in at least 20 states participated in
the program:
• Round 1: 38 states and Puerto Rico
• Round 2: 43 states and Puerto Rico
• Round 3: 26 states and Puerto Rico
• Round 4: 20 states
• Round 5: 24 states
The state or territory in which the most contractors were located varied
across the rounds:
• Rounds 1 and 2: California (30, 27)
• Round 3: Florida (six)
• Round 4: California, Florida, Ohio, and Washington (three in each)
• Round 5: California (five)
The contractors delivered food boxes to all 50 states; Washington, D.C.;
Guam; Puerto Rico; and the U.S. Virgin Islands by the time the program
ended, on May 31, 2021, according to our analysis of USDA data as of
June 4, 2021. 3 The state or territory in which the most contractors
delivered food boxes changed across the rounds:
1A contractor is considered participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) awarded the contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a
basic ordering agreement with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at
least one contract in rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program.
2To determine the location of contractors participating in the Food Box Program, we used
the address included for each contractor in USDA’s supply chain management database.
The state in which a contractor was located may not be the same as the state(s) in which
it delivered food boxes.
3The number of boxes delivered refers to those received by and accepted by recipients
and for which contractors will be paid by the government, according to USDA.
Page 38 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Participated in the Food Box Program
• Rounds 1 and 2: California (37, 34)
• Round 3: Florida (11)
• Round 4: Ohio and Texas (three in each)
• Round 5: California, Florida, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island,
Washington (two in each)
Table 6 presents information about the number of contractors located in
each state, and table 7 presents information about the number of
contractors delivering food boxes in each state. The state in which
contractors were located is based on the address included for each
contractor in USDA’s supply chain management database. A contractor’s
location may not be the same as the state(s) in which the contractor
delivered food boxes.
Table 6: Number of Contractors That Participated in USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program Located in Each State,
Rounds 1–5
Number of contractors located in the state
State Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Rounds 1–5
AK 0 1 0 0 1 1
AL 3 3 0 0 0 3
AR 1 1 0 0 0 1
AZ 3 4 1 1 1 4
CA 30 27 5 3 5 33
CO 1 1 0 0 0 1
CT 3 3 0 0 0 3
DC 0 0 0 0 0 0
DE 0 1 1 1 0 1
FL 11 11 6 3 3 16
GA 5 6 3 0 0 6
GU 0 0 0 0 0 0
HI 5 5 0 1 1 5
IA 2 2 1 0 1 3
ID 1 1 0 0 0 1
IL 10 10 1 0 1 11
IN 2 2 0 0 0 2
KS 4 3 1 1 1 4
KY 0 0 2 0 1 2
LA 1 1 2 1 1 3
Page 39 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Participated in the Food Box Program
Number of contractors located in the state
State Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Rounds 1–5
MA 6 6 1 0 1 6
MD 4 4 5 2 4 8
ME 0 2 0 0 1 2
MI 10 10 2 1 2 10
MN 1 1 1 1 0 2
MO 6 6 2 1 0 6
MS 3 3 0 0 0 3
MT 0 1 0 0 0 1
NC 5 5 2 0 0 6
ND 0 0 0 0 0 0
NE 0 2 0 0 0 2
NH 1 1 0 0 0 1
NJ 4 4 2 0 1 7
NM 0 0 0 0 0 0
NV 0 0 0 0 1 1
NY 10 10 1 1 0 11
OH 6 6 2 3 1 6
OK 1 1 1 1 1 1
OR 3 3 0 1 1 3
PA 17 17 2 2 2 17
PR 3 3 2 0 0 3
RI 2 2 0 0 0 2
SC 4 6 0 0 0 6
SD 0 0 0 0 0 0
TN 1 1 1 1 1 1
TX 7 5 3 1 1 9
UT 1 1 0 0 0 1
VA 1 2 2 2 1 3
VI 0 0 0 0 0 0
VT 2 2 0 0 0 2
WA 12 13 1 3 2 15
WI 8 7 1 0 0 8
WV 0 0 0 0 0 0
WY 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 200 206 54 31 36 243
Legend:
GU – Guam
Page 40 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Participated in the Food Box Program
PR – Puerto Rico
VI – U.S. Virgin Islands
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) information. | GAO-21-353
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Round 1 of the program ran from May 15 through June 30, 2020; Round 2, July 1 through September
18, 2020; Round 3, September 22 through October 31, 2020; Round 4, November 1 through
December 31, 2020; and Round 5, January 1 through May 31, 2021.
To determine the location of contractors participating in the Food Box Program, we used the address
included for each contractor in USDA’s supply chain management database. The state in which a
contractor was located may not be the same as the state(s) in which it delivered food boxes.
A contractor is considered participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) awarded the contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a basic ordering
agreement with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at least one contract in
rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program. Some contractors participated in multiple rounds of the program. As
such, column totals do not provide the total number of unique contractors.
Table 7: Number of Contractors That Participated in USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program That Delivered Food
Boxes to Recipient Organizations, by State and Round
Number of contractors delivering food boxes to the state
State Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
AK 1 3 1 1 1
AL 12 17 3 1 1
AR 11 7 4 1 1
AZ 11 9 4 1 1
CA 37 34 5 1 2
CO 9 10 3 1 1
CT 13 13 1 1 1
DC 6 8 2 1 1
DE 8 7 2 1 1
FL 22 22 11 2 2
GA 15 21 5 1 1
GU 2 2 1 0 1
HI 5 5 1 1 1
IA 10 10 3 1 1
ID 4 4 2 1 1
IL 25 25 6 1 1
IN 22 21 5 1 1
KS 7 6 4 1 1
KY 9 13 5 1 1
LA 6 8 3 1 1
MA 15 18 2 1 1
Page 41 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Participated in the Food Box Program
Number of contractors delivering food boxes to the state
State Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
MD 15 16 7 1 2
ME 4 6 1 1 1
MI 19 21 3 1 1
MN 12 13 4 1 1
MO 14 12 7 1 1
MS 10 14 8 1 1
MT 3 6 1 1 1
NC 17 18 7 2 1
ND 3 5 2 1 1
NE 7 7 4 1 1
NH 8 10 1 1 1
NJ 15 15 2 1 1
NM 7 9 4 1 1
NV 7 7 4 1 1
NY 20 24 8 2 2
OH 16 18 5 3 1
OK 9 7 4 1 1
OR 7 6 2 1 1
PA 28 28 6 2 1
PR 3 3 2 1 1
RI 7 9 1 1 2
SC 12 15 4 1 1
SD 4 4 2 1 1
TN 14 17 6 1 1
TX 18 16 5 3 1
UT 4 5 3 1 1
VA 14 18 2 1 1
VI 0 1 1 1 1
VT 3 2 2 1 1
WA 17 16 4 2 2
WI 12 14 5 1 1
WV 6 9 2 1 1
WY 1 2 2 1 1
Legend:
GU – Guam
PR – Puerto Rico
VI – U.S. Virgin Islands
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) information. | GAO-21-353
Page 42 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IV: Number of Contractors That
Participated in the Food Box Program
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Round 1 of the program ran from May 15 through June 30, 2020; Round 2, July 1 through September
18, 2020; Round 3, September 22 through October 31, 2020; Round 4, November 1 through
December 31, 2020; and Round 5, January 1 through May 31, 2021.
A contractor is considered participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) awarded the contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a basic ordering
agreement with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at least one contract in
rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program.
Page 43 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix V: Price and Number of Food Appendix V: Price and Number of Food Boxes,
by Type
Boxes, by Type
The prices for an individual food box for the Farmers to Families Food
Box Program (Food Box Program) varied widely among contractors.
During the first two rounds, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
permitted distribution of boxes consisting of only fresh fruits, dairy, fruit
and vegetables, precooked meat, milk, or a combination. For the third
through fifth rounds, however, USDA provided contracts only for
combination boxes. Table 8 shows the range in prices for individual food
boxes, by type.
Table 8: Price per Food Box, by Type, for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, by Round
Food box type Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
Combination Maximum $150.00 $150.00 $99.00 $64.95 $105.00
Minimum $10.30 $10.30 $34.95 $32.61 $27.79
Mean $63.09 $63.25 $45.23 $38.89 $31.90
Median $76.05 $67.18 $44.39 $38.90 $31.25
Contract $258,797,740 $476,266,382 $916,478,455 $485,648,656 $1,416,651,915
obligations
Number of food 4,102,321 7,529,684 20,260,689 12,488,297 44,402,739
boxes specified in
contracts
Dairy Maximum $85.20 $93.60
Minimum $5.00 $7.00
Mean $34.01 $34.81
Median $29.22 $29.00
Contract $140,163,233 $231,078,363
obligations
Number of food 4,121,474 6,637,849
boxes specified in
contracts
Fresh fruit and Maximum $90.00 $580.00a
vegetable Minimum $9.70 $9.70
Mean $23.41 $22.73
Median $22.25 $21.95
Contract $438,062,085 $817,116,197
obligations
Number of food 18,711,212 35,946,172
boxes specified in
contracts
Milk Maximum $35.05 $35.05
Minimum $1.35 $1.35
Mean $4.38 $4.04
Page 44 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix V: Price and Number of Food Boxes,
by Type
Food box type Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5
Median $3.79 $3.55
Contract $95,610,611 $111,470,845
obligations
Number of food 21,838,452 27,615,258
boxes specified in
contracts
Precooked meat Maximum $149.01 $180.00
Minimum $17.65 $17.65
Mean $52.11 $54.75
Median $42.55 $45.66
Contract $179,319,600 $313,073,866
obligations
Number of food 3,441,058 5,717,887
boxes specified in
contracts
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data. | GAO-21-353
Notes: This table presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Round 1 of the program ran from May 15 through June 30, 2020; Round 2, July 1 through September
18, 2020; Round 3, September 22 through October 31, 2020; Round 4, November 1 through
December 31, 2020; and Round 5, January 1 through May 31, 2021.
According to USDA, the solicitation for round 3 of the program indicated a preference for combination
boxes over individual box types. In rounds 3, 4, and 5, contractors only provided combination boxes.
Maximum and minimum prices per food box described in this table reflect the highest and lowest
prices, respectively, offered by contractors in their proposals, not established maximum or minimum
allowable prices.
a
The maximum food box price of $580.00 applied to 31 of 9,601 food boxes delivered by one
contractor across rounds 1 and 2 (for a total of $17,980), according to our analysis. According to
USDA documentation, each of these 31 food boxes weighed 570 pounds. A USDA official clarified
that each of these food boxes was a container with 570 pounds of apples.
Most of the food boxes that contractors delivered to recipient
organizations for the Food Box Program were combination boxes (48.2
percent), followed by fruit and vegetable boxes (29.8 percent), according
to data as of June 4, 2021. 1 Figure 10 shows the number and type of food
boxes delivered across the five rounds of the program.
1According to USDA, the solicitation for round 3 of the program indicated a preference for
combination boxes over individual box types. In rounds 3, 4, and 5, contractors only
provided combination boxes. As a result, milk boxes were only delivered during the first
two rounds.
Page 45 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix V: Price and Number of Food Boxes,
by Type
Figure 10: Number and Type of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations
for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program, Rounds 1–5
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
According to USDA, the solicitation for round 3 of the program indicated a preference for combination
boxes over individual box types. In rounds 3, 4, and 5, contractors only provided combination boxes.
Page 46 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VI: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Appendix VI: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by Type and State
Recipient Organizations, by Type and State
Contractors that participated in the Farmers to Families Food Box
Program (Food Box Program) delivered the largest numbers of food
boxes to recipient organizations in California, Florida, and Texas—the
states with the largest populations—(see fig. 11) by the time the program
ended, on May 31, 2021, according to our analysis of U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) data as of June 4, 2021. 1 California and Texas
accounted for over 19 million food boxes each. Contractors delivered
fewer than 8 million food boxes to recipient organizations in each of the
remaining states; Washington D.C.; as well as the U.S. territories of
Guam; Puerto Rico; and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 2 Contractors delivered
the fewest numbers of food boxes (less than 300,000 boxes each) to
recipient organizations in Alaska, Rhode Island, and Wyoming—which
are among the states with the smallest populations—as well as the U.S.
territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 3
1A contractor is considered participating in the program if USDA’s Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) awarded the contractor a contract in round 1 or 2, or if AMS established a
basic ordering agreement with the contractor and subsequently awarded the contractor at
least one contract in rounds 3, 4, or 5 of the program.
2Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—territories of the U.S.—participated in
the Food Box Program.
3The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on populations of Guam or the U.S. Virgin
Islands for the American Community Survey, which we used in our data analysis. USDA
officials said that, starting in round 3 of the program, the department based the amount of
food each state received on the total number of unemployed persons and the total number
of people with incomes below the poverty level in the state.
Page 47 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VI: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by Type and State
Figure 11: Number of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program,
by State, Rounds 1–5
Note: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Contractors that participated in the Food Box Program delivered food
boxes to recipient organizations in all 50 states; Washington, D.C.; and
Puerto Rico in each of the five rounds, according to our analysis of USDA
Page 48 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VI: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by Type and State
data as of June 4, 2021. 4 Across rounds 1 and 2, contractors delivered
more fruit and vegetable boxes than the other types of food boxes. 5
However, as previously mentioned, most of the food boxes that
contractors delivered across rounds 1 through 5 were combination boxes
(48.2 percent). Figure 12 presents data on the number of food boxes
delivered to recipient organizations in each state per type of box.
4Contractors did not deliver food boxes to Guam in round 4, but did deliver them in rounds
1, 2, 3, and 5. Also, contractors did not deliver food boxes to the U.S. Virgin Islands during
round 1, but did deliver them in rounds 2 through 5.
5According to USDA, the solicitation for round 3 of the program indicated a preference for
combination boxes over individual box types. In rounds 3, 4, and 5, contractors only
provided combination boxes.
Page 49 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VI: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations, by Type and State
Figure 12: Number and Type of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box
Program, by State, Rounds 1–5
Notes: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May
31, 2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Recipient organizations could provide the food boxes to individuals directly or could distribute food
boxes to other organizations for them to provide to individuals. In addition, recipient organizations
could be located in different locations than where the food boxes were delivered. As a result, the
number of counties in which food boxes were delivered may be higher.
Page 50 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VII: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Appendix VII: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations per 1,000 Estimated
Recipient Organizations per 1,000 Estimated
Persons, by State
Persons, by State
Across rounds 1 through 5, contractors delivered, on average, 537 food
boxes to recipient organizations per 1,000 estimated persons across all
states; Washington, D.C.; and Puerto Rico (see fig. 13) for the Farmers to
Families Food Box Program by the time the program ended, on May 31,
2021, according to data as of June 4, 2021. 1 Recipient organizations in
Puerto Rico received the most food boxes per 1,000 estimated persons
(1,475). The states in which contractors delivered the fewest number of
food boxes to recipient organizations per 1,000 estimated persons were
Utah (224), New Hampshire (229), and Rhode Island (255).
1The U.S. territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands were not included because the
U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on their populations for the American
Community Survey, which we used in our data analysis.
Page 51 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VII: Delivery of Food Boxes to
Recipient Organizations per 1,000 Estimated
Persons, by State
Figure 13: Number of Food Boxes Delivered to Recipient Organizations for USDA’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program,
per 1,000 Estimated Persons, by State, Rounds 1–5
Note: This figure presents data as of June 4, 2021, because although the program ended on May 31,
2021, contractors were able to continue entering data into USDA’s supply chain management
database.
Page 52 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VIII: USDA’s Lessons Learned
Appendix VIII: USDA’s Lessons Learned from
the Food Box Program
from the Food Box Program
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) took steps to collect, from
various sources, lessons learned from its implementation of the Farmers
to Families Food Box Program (Food Box Program). For example, in
January 2021, USDA conducted a preliminary review of the program that
included lessons learned. 1 USDA also developed a background briefing
document that included lessons learned from the department’s
experience. In March 2021, USDA conducted listening sessions with
various stakeholders, such as food and agriculture industry organizations,
to obtain feedback about the program. 2 We provide below examples of
such lessons learned, some of which USDA implemented during later
rounds of the program, and describe USDA’s statements about these
lessons.
Program Oversight
• Better data collection and analysis for the program would have helped
USDA understand issues of importance to Congress and others. In its
preliminary review, USDA stated that its contracting process has not
traditionally required detailed reporting (i.e., data collection and USDA
analysis) by recipient organizations, contractors, and producers on
sources of food; the types of producers supplying them; benefits, if
any, to small farming operations; 3 and contractors’ retention of jobs,
among other things. As such, USDA did not build such reporting into
the program. This made it difficult to obtain and provide this
information to address congressional interest, according to USDA.
Contractor Distribution of Food
• Improvements in the distribution process could streamline
coordination and enhance efficiency. In its background briefing
document, USDA identified multiple areas where the Food Box
Program could have improved contractor distribution methods and
1U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Farmers to Families Food Box Preliminary Review
(Washington, D.C.: January 2021).
2USDA received over 7,000 comments from over 300 stakeholders about the program.
USDA retained a firm to summarize and document these comments. Based on the firm’s
May 2021 analysis of these comments, stakeholder recommendations focused on the
following topics: (1) box structure and content, (2) distribution methods and processes,
and (3) contractor selection and participation practices.
3For the Food Box Program, USDA defined small farming operations as those servicing
local and regional interests and farmers markets.
Page 53 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VIII: USDA’s Lessons Learned from
the Food Box Program
processes. For example, the Food Box Program could have
collaborated with USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service and appropriate
state agencies and their food distribution networks to benefit from
their expertise, efficiency, and coordination with existing food
distribution programs.
• Including a requirement for contractors to cover costs for “last mile”
delivery. After round 2 of the program and in response to stakeholder
feedback, USDA made a change to require that contractors cover
costs of the “last mile” of delivery—meaning, delivery to the recipient
organization. Specifically, USDA’s preliminary review stated that,
during the initial round, some food boxes were delivered to central
distribution centers, forcing recipient organizations to incur extra costs
in traveling to these centers to retrieve the food boxes. In response,
USDA included a requirement in its solicitations for contractors to
include in their bids the full delivery cost to the recipient distribution
point.
Food Box Contents
• Specific food box types could better meet needs of the public.
Although contractors provided only combination food boxes in the last
three rounds of the program, stakeholders stated, during a listening
session in March 2021, that food boxes with specific types of food (for
example, fruits and vegetables, dairy, and meat) could accommodate
recipients with varying dietary, cultural, and nutritional needs. In
addition, stakeholders stated that food boxes could be tailored to
persons in a variety of situations (for example, homeless or recipients
without kitchen equipment). 4 Further, feedback from food bank
representatives identified combination boxes as requiring additional
time to unpack and store appropriately. In its background briefing
document, USDA stated it could partner internally, with the Food and
Nutrition Service, and externally, with appropriate state agencies, to
clearly define distribution requirements, including modifying contents
of food boxes to meet the needs of different ethnic and cultural
populations.
4USDA clarified the requirements for meat products to limit the amount of processed
meats and to improve the quality of the contents of the box. Additionally, USDA clarified
the definition of cheese and labeling requirements to ensure that suppliers understand the
specification and submit pricing accordingly.
Page 54 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix VIII: USDA’s Lessons Learned from
the Food Box Program
USDA officials told us that external entities also reviewed various aspects
of the Food Box Program with recommendations to USDA for future
programs. For example, Harvard Law School and the National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition issued a report on the program, as did
the United Fresh Produce Association. 5 These reports describe lessons
learned that were similar to the ones USDA identified.
5Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic and National Sustainable Agricultural
Coalition, An Evaluation of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program (February 2021);
United Fresh Produce Association, Produce Box Working Group, Recommendations for
USDA’s Food Box Program (March 2021).
Page 55 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Steve D. Morris, (202) 512-3841 or morriss@gao.gov
GAO Contact
In addition to the contact named above, Tahra Nichols (Assistant
Staff Director), John Barrett (Analyst in Charge), Kevin Bray, Tara Congdon,
Acknowledgments Grant Mallie, John Mingus, Cynthia Norris, Isabel Rosa, Amber Sinclair,
and Rajneesh Verma made significant contributions to this report.
Page 56 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products
COVID-19 Contracting: Opportunities to Improve Practices to Assess
Prospective Vendors and Capture Lessons Learned. GAO-21-528.
Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2021.
COVID-19: Sustained Federal Action Is Crucial as Pandemic Enters Its
Second Year. GAO-21-387. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2021.
Agriculture Spending: Opportunities Exist for USDA to Identify Successes
and Challenges of the Farmers to Families Food Box Program to Inform
Future Efforts. GAO-20-711R. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2020.
COVID-19: Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely and
Concerted Actions. GAO-20-701. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2020.
COVID-19: Opportunities to Improve Federal Response and Recovery
Efforts. GAO-20-625. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2020.
(104528)
Page 57 GAO-21-353 Food Box Program
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
GAO’s Mission arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly
GAO Reports and released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to
GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.
Testimony
Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
Contact FraudNet:
To Report Fraud,
Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet
Waste, and Abuse in
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Federal Programs
A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S.
Congressional Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington,
Relations DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
Strategic Planning and U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
External Liaison Washington, DC 20548
Please Print on Recycled Paper.
File and source
- File
- gao-21-353-usda-food-box-program.pdf
- Size
- 4,412,146 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4ab09d82632c4f450d3eb87c20411e77472c0793d9bafe87f27015d5ca7d0093
- Original
- www.gao.gov