FY2019 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Summary: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95 ), is the primary source of federal aid to K-12 education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $15.9 billion for FY2019. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families.

Summary: Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others.

Summary: This report provides FY2019 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2019 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.52% of total Title I-A grants). Vermont received the smallest FY2019 Title I-A grant amount ($36.9 million, or 0.24% of total Title I-A grants).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95 ), is the primary source of federal aid to elementary and secondary education. Title I-A is the largest program in the ESEA, funded at $15.9 billion for FY2019. Title I-A is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG).

This report provides FY2019 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. For a general overview of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44164, ESEA Title I-A Formulas: In Brief . For a more detailed discussion of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44461, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act .

Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs) using the four Title I-A formulas. Annual appropriations acts specify portions of each year's Title I-A appropriation to be allocated to LEAs and states under each of the formulas. In FY2019, about 41% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grants formula, 9% through the Concentration Grants formula, and 25% each through the Targeted Grants and EFIG formulas. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly.

For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a "formula child count," consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children living in families in poverty, by an "expenditure factor" based on state average per pupil expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. In some of the Title I-A formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the formula child count and expenditure factor to determine a maximum grant amount. These maximum grants are then reduced to equal the level of available appropriations for each formula, taking into account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant provisions. In general, LEAs must have a minimum number of formula children and/or a minimum formula child rate to be eligible to receive a grant under a specific Title I-A formula. Some LEAs may qualify for a grant under only one formula, while other LEAs may be eligible to receive grants under multiple formulas.

Under three of the formulasâBasic, Concentration, and Targeted Grantsâgrants are initially calculated at the LEA level. State grants are the total of allocations for all LEAs in the state, adjusted for state minimum grant provisions. Under EFIG, grants are first calculated for each state overall and then are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within the state using a different formula.

FY2019 grants included in this report were calculated by ED. The percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas was calculated by CRS for each state by dividing the total grant received by the total amount allocated under each respective formula.

Table 1 provides each state's grant amount and percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2019. Total Title I-A grants, calculated by summing the state level grant for each of the four formulas, are also shown in Table 1 .

Overall, California received the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion) and, as a result, the largest percentage share (12.52%) of Title I-A grants. Vermont received the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($36.9 million) and, as a result, the smallest percentage share (0.24%) of Title I-A grants.

In general, grant amounts for states vary among formulas due to the different allocation amounts for the formulas. For example, the Basic Grant formula receives a greater share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration Grant formula, so states generally receive higher grant amounts under the Basic Grant formula than under the Concentration Grant formula.

Among states, Title I-A grant amounts and the percentage shares of funds vary due to the different characteristics of each state. For example, Texas has a larger population of children included in the formula calculations than North Carolina and, therefore, is to receive a higher grant amount and larger share of Title I-A funds.

Within a state, the percentage share of funds allocated may vary by formula, as certain formulas are more favorable to certain types of states (e.g., EFIG is generally more favorable to states with comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs). If a state's share of a given Title I-A formula exceeds its share of overall Title I-A funds, this is generally an indication that this particular formula is more favorable to the state than formulas for which the state's share of funds is below its overall share of Title I-A funds. For example, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming each received a higher percentage share of Targeted Grants than of overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Targeted Grant formula is more favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be.

In states that received a minimum grant under all four formulas (Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming), the shares under the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas are greater than under the Basic Grant or Concentration Grant formulas, due to higher state minimums under these formulas. If a state received the minimum grant under a given Title I-A formula, the grant amount is denoted with an asterisk (*) in Table 1 .


Demographic and Social Characteristics of Persons in Poverty: 2018

Summary: This report provides a snapshot of the characteristics of the poor in the United States in 2018. It shows that people from families whose income falls below the federal poverty thresholds represent a diverse subset of the overall population.

Summary: There were 38.1 million people living below the federal poverty level in 2018, representing 11.8% of the total population. Nearly half (45.3%) of all people in poverty lived in deep poverty (with income below 50% of the poverty threshold). The largest share of people in poverty were non-Hispanic white (41.2%) but the majority were not. Almost all other racial and ethnic groups were over-represented among the poor, relative to their prevalence in the overall population. Similar to the overall population, children who were poor were more racially and ethnically diverse than adults who were poor, especially aged adults. A majority (56.0%) of poor people were women. Children (under age 18) were disproportionately represented among people in poverty, constituting slightly less than one-third (31.1%) of this group. Over two-thirds of poor children (68.1%) lived in families where there was at least one worker, compared with 11.0% who lived in families with at least two workers. Conversely, in the overall population, half of all children lived in families with two workers. Most poor children lived in single parent homes, but nearly one-third (32.2%) lived in married-couple families. Over two-thirds (68.2%) of children in the overall population lived in married-couple families. The majority of people in poverty were working-age adults (age 18-64). While most (77.3%) working-age adults in the overall population were working in 2018, most (63.2%) working-age adults in poverty were not working in 2018. The most common reasons reported for non-work among those in poverty were illness or disability, the need to meet caretaking responsibilities, or being enrolled in school. Although most working-aged adults in poverty were not working, 36.8% were working in 2018; 12.0% were working full-time, full-year. Most working-age adults in poverty lacked a post-secondary educational credential; 78.9% had a high school diploma or less, compared to 56.0% in the overall population. Among people in poverty, 13.5% were aged (age 65 and older); because aged adults make up 16.3% of the overall population, this means they are underrepresented among people in poverty. The vast majority of aged adults in poverty either had, or lived in families that had, income from work or from retirement or other social insurance tied to prior work. Aged adults in poverty are far more likely to live alone than aged adults overall (49.9% compared to 28.0%).

Poverty is an ongoing topic of interest for Congress, in various capacities: as a factor to be considered when allocating funding for certain programs, as an eligibility criterion for some low-income assistance programs, and to gauge the well-being of individuals, families, or the economy as a whole. The poverty rate fell to 11.8% in 2018 from 12.3% in 2017. In both years, the poverty rate was lower than the pre-recessionary level of 12.5% in 2007. However, since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the poverty rate remained elevated for approximately the first four years after the recession's end, and despite reductions in the poverty rate in recent years, it remains higher than its record-low of 11.1% in 1973. Poverty's persistence alongside indicators of economic strength has led policymakers to continually examine the drivers of povertyâboth economic and socialâand the effectiveness of various policy responses. As the conversations about poverty and public policy continue, it may be useful to consider the question: Who are the people who are poor in the United States?

This report provides a snapshot of who was poor in 2018 by selected demographic, economic, and social characteristics. The data presented here show that people in poverty are not a monolithic group, but rather a diverse collection of families and individuals at different stages of life, living in different circumstances. Special attention is paid in this report to the role of work in the lives of people who are poor. Income from work, or the lack thereof, is central to the economic fortunes not only of those considered "working-age," but also of children, who are generally dependent on working-age adults, and persons who are aged (age 65 and older), who generally have prior experience in the workforce that shapes their economic well-being after they retire. Attention is also paid to living arrangements. Because poverty is measured at the family level, considerations such as whether someone lives alone, or whom someone lives and potentially shares resources with, influence economic well-being. Other factors that affect family well-being, and that influence individuals' attachment to and success in the labor market, are important for considering individuals' experiences of poverty but are beyond the scope of this report.

This snapshot looks at the composition of people in povertyâwhat groups comprise what share of the poverty populationârather than at poverty rates among different groups. This provides a different perspective in viewing poverty. A large population group such as non-Hispanic whites might have relatively low poverty rates, but because of the group's size in the overall population it represents a relatively large share of the poverty population. A small population, such as American Indians and Alaska Natives, might have relatively high poverty rates, but because of the group's size it represents a relatively small share of the poverty population. Both perspectives on poverty are valid and relevant to public policy. Readers interested in an examination of poverty rates for different demographic groupsâand trends in poverty over timeâshould see CRS Report R46000, Poverty in the United States in 2018: In Brief , by Joseph Dalaker.

Poverty, in general, is a lack of resources to meet basic needs. This report uses the official measure of poverty used by the U.S. Census Bureau to identify individuals as "poor." However, it is important to note that the Census poverty measure is actually family -based. Whether a person is considered poor depends on his or her money income and the income of any other family membersâthose related to a family head by birth, marriage, or adoptionâwith whom the person lives and presumably shares resources. If an individual is living alone or with people who are not relatives, that individual is considered a family of one and only his or her income is counted in determining his or her poverty status. That money income is then compared with a dollar threshold, which is based on that individual's family composition. For example, the poverty threshold for a working-age single person (who does not live in a family) in 2018 was $13,064. A single person with income below that amount is considered poor. The poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children was $25,465. If the combined income of all family members was below that amount, all people in that family would be considered poor.

The current official poverty measure has existed for about 50 years and is widely used, but it does have limitations. For example, the official measure looks only at pre-tax money income and does not examine the impact of government taxes and non-cash benefits on family well-being. The official measure also generally does not take the value of assets into account, though a recent change in measurement now considers distributions from retirement savings as income. The official measure is also the same across the country, and does not take into consideration differences in living costs in different geographical areas. Additionally, the measure's current definition of family does not take into account modern resource-sharing arrangements, such as those of cohabiting couples. The Census Bureau now publishes a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) for research purposes that does take into account taxes and transfers, make adjustments for housing costs by geographical area, and use an expanded definition of family.

In 2018, an estimated 38.1 million people had pre-tax money income below the poverty threshold. As shown in Figure 1 , people who were poor accounted for 11.8% of the total noninstitutionalized population.

The number and percentage of people in poverty reflect those whose family income fell short of the poverty threshold by any dollar amount. Of course, some people are poorer than others. One area of policy focus has been on the very poor: those considered to be in "deep poverty." Deep poverty is usually defined as having income below 50% of the poverty threshold. In 2018, an estimated 17.3 million persons, close to half of all people in poverty (45.3%), were counted as living in deep poverty.

The population of people living in poverty comprised individuals of all ages and sexes, and across all racial and ethnic groups.

Figure 2 shows the composition of the population living in poverty and the overall population (for context) by age group in 2018. Three categories are presented: children (those under age 18), working-age adults (those ages 18 to 64), and the aged (those age 65 and older).

As shown in the figure, slightly less than one-third (11.9 million) of all people in poverty were children. Children were over-represented among people in poverty relative to the overall populationâ31.1% compared to 22.6%. People who were working age (18-64) made up the largest share of the population who were poor, but they were under-represented among people in poverty relative to the overall population (55.4% compared to 61.1%). Among persons who were poor, 13.5% were age 65 and older, a smaller representation than their share of the overall population (16.3%).

Figure 3 shows the composition of people in the poverty population and the total population (for context) by race and ethnicity for 2018. The racial and ethnic groups presented are ranked by the size of their total population (which is the same in both cases). Non-Hispanic whites were the largest racial/ethnic group overall (60.2% of the total population), and represented the largest racial/ethnic group within the poverty population (41.2%). Hispanics (of any race) were the second largest group (18.5% of the total population) and represented 27.6% of all those who were poor. Non-Hispanic African-Americans were the third largest racial/ethnic group in both the total and poverty populations, representing 12.3% and 21.9%, respectively.

Note that most minority groups were over-represented in the poverty population relative to their share of the overall population. The over-represented groups were Hispanics, non-Hispanic African-Americans, and non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives. Under-represented racial/ethnic groups were non-Hispanic whites and Asians.

The racial and ethnic composition of people in poverty by age group is shaped by the overall demographic trends affecting each age group. As illustrated in Figure 4 , children (under age 18), both poor and overall, are more racially and ethnically diverse than adults, especially the aged (age 65+). However, minorities were over-represented in the poverty population for all age groups in 2018. For instance, Hispanic children (of any race) made up the largest share of poor children (37.4%) whereas non-Hispanic white children made up the largest share (50.0%) of children overall.

Women slightly outnumber men in the overall population, accounting for 51.0% of the total population in 2018. However, as shown in Figure 5 , women represented an even larger share (56.0%) of the population in poverty. This over-representation may be due, in part, to the fact that women are more likely than men to head single-parent households, a family type that is more likely to be poor. Additionally, men's earnings are higher than women's on average, even accounting for differences in full-time year-round employment status.

Poverty Among Children, Working-Age Adults, and Aged Adults

Poverty raises different public policy considerations for children, working-age adults, and aged adults. Children are not expected to support themselves economicallyâthey are dependents of their parents or other adult caretakers who are assumed to fulfill that responsibility. Policies affecting the family income and poverty status of children generally apply to their parents or other adult caretakers. Working-age adultsâaside from those who are severely disabledâare expected to work and to support themselves and their children, if they have any. Aged adults may retire from work and draw income from public or private benefits, which are based primarily on their past work.

The remainder of this report separately explores poverty among children, working-age adults, and aged adults. Though relevant policy considerations may differ among the three groups, the central role played by work as the primary means of economic support for individuals and families is highlighted. That work could be one's own work, the work of the parents or other family members, or past work providing retirement income. Similarly, because poverty is a family-based measure and the ability to share resources is an important consideration in economic well-being, living arrangements are also explored.

As noted earlier, children made up slightly less than one-third of all people in poverty in America in 2018, even though they made up less than a quarter of the total population. Thus, children in America are disproportionately poor. Of the three age groups examined in this report, children had the highest poverty rate in 2018, 16.2%.

Children rely on their parents or other adult caretakers for their support. That support, even for children who are poor, is likely to come from earnings from the work of their parents or other adult caretakers.

Figure 6 shows the composition of children who were poor and children in the total population by number of adult workers in the family for 2018. Note that the number of adult workers can exceed two, as it would include all adults in the family (such as siblings older than 18, grandparents, or other relatives over the age of 18). The figure shows that among children in the total population, 93.0% lived in families with at least one adult worker and roughly half (51.4%) lived in families with two or more adult workers.

Among children who were poor, just over two-thirds lived in families with one or more workers. A majority of children in poor families (57.1%) lived in families with one worker, compared with 11.0% who lived in families with two or more workers. The remaining 31.9% lived in families with no workers.

The number of potential adult workers in a child's family is affected by the type of family a child lives in. A single parent family might have only one potential adult worker, while a married-couple family has at least two potential adult workers.

Figure 7 shows the distribution of children who were poor and children in the total population by family type in 2018. Children living in female-headed families accounted for a majority (57.5%) of all children who were poor, a disproportionate share relative to children in the total population. However, children in married-couple families still accounted for nearly one-third (32.2%) of all children who were poor.

Despite a relatively low poverty rate for children in married-couple families in 2018, the large size of this population overall (children in married-couple families accounted for over two-thirds of all children) meant that a substantial number of children who were poor lived in this family type. Married-couple families were the only family type that was significantly under - represented among the population of children in poverty relative to the overall population.

Children who are poor are also more likely to live in larger families. Larger families require more income to meet needs, and thus the poverty thresholds for larger families are higher than for small families. However, since most children live in families with earnings, and earnings are not determined by family sizeâthey are determined by what the worker can command in the labor marketâlarger families are more likely to be poor.

Figure 8 shows the composition of children who were poor and children in the overall population by number of children in the family in 2018. In that year, 24.7% of all children who were poor were in families with four or more children, which is disproportionately higher than the 14.2% of children in the overall population living in families of that size. In contrast, 46.0% of children who were poor were in families with only one or two children.

The majority of people in poverty in America are working-age adults (18-64 years old). This age group represented 55.4% (21.1 million individuals) of all people in poverty in 2018. Overall, this age group had a poverty rate of 10.7%, a lower rate than that of the overall population.

Because poverty is a state of low income, and income generally comes from work, it is useful to explore the work status of working-age adults who are poor. In the overall population of working-age adults, the majority (77.3%) worked in 2018. However, among working-age adults who were poor, the majority (63.2%) did not work.

As shown in Figure 9 , 36.8% of working-age adults who were poor were working in some capacity, either full- or part-time, full- or part-year. However, a relatively small share (12.0%) of working-age adults who were poor worked full-time all year.

When working-age adults, both the poor and those in the overall population, were asked why they were not working, a wide range of reasons were given. Of non-working adults who were poor, one-third reported being ill or disabled, one-fourth reported taking care of family members, 18.8% said they were going to school, 11.4% said they were retired, and 6.0% said they could not find a job. For those not working in the overall population, a greater proportion (16.2%) reported being retired and a smaller proportion (27.1%) reported being ill or disabled.

A large body of research has shown that success in the workforce is related to educational attainment. Credentials indicating higher levels of education tend to be reflected in higher earnings and steadier work. Figure 10 shows both working-age adults who were poor and all working-age adults by educational credential. The largest group (54.7%) of poor working-age adults in 2018 were those who obtained a high school diploma but no post-secondary educational credential. (High school graduates without a post-secondary credential were also the largest group (45.8%) within the total population of working-age adults.) Those lacking a high school diploma accounted for another 24.2% of all poor working-age adults, more than twice the share represented in the overall population (10.2%). The remaining 21.1% of 18 to 64 year olds below poverty had some postsecondary credential; the corresponding figure for all 18 to 64 year olds was 44.0%.

It should be noted that the working-age adult group includes young adults, whose education might not be finished.

Working-age adults represented a diverse group in terms of their family and living arrangements. Figure 11 shows both poor and all working-age adults by their living arrangements. A majority of both groups lived in families, although family living arrangements were more prevalent in the overall population (77.8%) than among the poor (56.4%). (As noted previously, "family," as used by the Census Bureau, includes people related by birth, marriage, or adoption.)

Working-age adults who did not live in families were disproportionately poor in 2018; 43.6% of all working-age adults in poverty lived outside of a family. Included in this group were those living alone (19.0%) and those living with cohabiting partners (13.0%) or other unrelated adults/roommates (11.7%). However, determination of the poverty status of people living outside of families but with others is not straightforward. The poverty status of individuals with cohabiting partners or who are living with other adults is based on each individual's income; no "pooling" of income is assumed in the official poverty measure, including among cohabiting partners who may be sharing resources.

Of the three age groups discussed in this report, aged adults are the least likely to be living below the poverty line. In 2018, they accounted for 16.3% of the total population, compared with 13.5% of the population in poverty. The poverty rate among aged adults was 9.7% in 2018.

Aged adults may retire from the workforce with the support of both public and private sector policies, and in 2018, 76.4% of all adults aged 65 and older did not work. However, income derived from workâpast work, the earnings of other family members, and the earnings of the minority of aged adults who continue to workâplays a key role in determining the economic well-being of aged adults.

Figure 12 explores various forms of work-related income received directly by aged persons or their families, including the following:

Social Security income is earned through past work, with the initial benefit determined based on past earnings, with the benefit replacing a portion of those earnings. In 2018, Social Security was received by the families of 63.8% of all aged persons who are poor, compared to 85.1% of aged persons in the total population. Aged persons also frequently receive income from pensions and other benefits earned from jobs held during their working careers. These include private pensions or government pensions paid to former public sector employees. Far fewer aged adults in poverty receive these benefits compared to the overall aged population. In 2018, retirement, disability, or survivor pensions were received by the families of 51.6% of all aged persons, compared with 10.4% of the families of aged persons who were poor. Earnings from current workâeither by the aged adult member or other family membersâare also often received by families with aged persons. In 2018, earnings were received by the families of 41.4% of aged persons. In comparison, 10.5% of families of aged persons who were poor received earnings from work.

When considering all of these various forms of work-derived income, most aged adults (97.1%) in the total population lived in families with income derived from work: either past work where Social Security or pension income was earned, or the current work of the aged adult or a family member. This share was smaller among aged persons who were poor, but still, almost three in four (74.2%) lived in families with income derived from work.

Figure 13 shows aged adults living in poverty by living arrangement, which is, as previously mentioned, an important consideration because of the possibility of resource-sharing. In 2018, roughly half (49.9%) of aged adults who were poor lived alone, which is a significantly higher rate than in the overall population of aged adults (28.0%). Aged adults in poverty were much less likely to be living in families than the overall aged population (43.1% compared to 68.4%).

This report presents basic information about the 38.1 million people in America who had income below the poverty line in 2018. Although it is presumed that they are all subject to income constraints, these data illustrate that they are not a homogenous group. For example, they are children, working-age adults, and aged adults; full-time full-year workers, caretakers for family members, or outside the workforce for other or unknown reasons; and living alone or in families.

As this report shows, certain groups are over-represented among those living in poverty relative to the total population. These include, among others, women, minorities, children, and people living outside of families or alone. The report also shows the central role of income from work in determining whether a group is over-represented among those living in poverty. For children, this income is based on the work of their parents or other family members. For working-age adults, it is their own work that generally determines their poverty status. For aged adults, who are often retired from the workforce, it is primarily their past work or the work of those they live with that determines their status. However, sometimes earnings from work are not enough to prevent poverty. Two-thirds of children living in poverty in 2018 were in families with at least one adult earning income during the year. In 2018, more than 7 out of 10 poor aged persons had some form of work-based income.

The complexity of circumstances that result in individuals experiencing povertyâboth individual and systemicâare beyond the scope of this report. However, those circumstances warrant further exploration when considering federal policy interventions designed to reduce the incidence, or ameliorate the effects of, poverty.


International Food Assistance: Food for Peace Nonemergency Programs

Summary: The U.S. government provides international food assistance to promote global food security, alleviate hunger, and address food crises among the world's most vulnerable populations. Congress authorizes this assistance through regular agriculture and international affairs legislation, and provides funding through annual appropriations legislation. The primary channel for this assistance is the Food for Peace program (FFP), administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Established in 1954, FFP has historically focused primarily on meeting the emergency food needs of the world's most vulnerable populations; however, it also manages a number of nonemergency programs. These lesser-known programs employ food to foster development aims, such as addressing the root causes of hunger and making communities more resilient to shocks, both natural and human-induced.

Summary: Nonemergency activities, which in FY2019 are funded at a minimum annual level of $365 million, may include in-kind food distributions, educational nutrition programs, training on agricultural markets and farming best practices, and broader community development initiatives, among others. In building resilience in vulnerable communities, the United States, through FFP, seeks to reduce the need for future emergency assistance. Similar to emergency food assistance, nonemergency programs use U.S. in-kind food aidâcommodities purchased in the United States and shipped overseas. In recent years, it has also turned to market-based approaches, such as procuring food in the country or region in which it will ultimately be delivered (also referred to as local and regional procurement, or LRP) or distributing vouchers and cash for local food purchase.

Summary: The 115 th Congress enacted both the 2018 farm bill ( P.L. 115-334 ) and Global Food Security Reauthorization Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-266 ), which authorized all Food for Peace programs through FY2023. In the 116 th Congress, Members may be interested in several policy and structural issues related to nonemergency food assistance as they consider foreign assistance, agriculture, and foreign affairs policies and programs in the course of finalizing annual appropriations legislation. For example,

Summary: The Trump Administration has repeatedly proposed eliminating funding for the entire FFP program, including both emergency and nonemergency programs, from Agriculture appropriations and instead fund food assistance entirely through Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations. The Administration asserts that the proposal is part of an effort to "streamline foreign assistance, prioritize funding, and use funding as effectively and efficiently as possible." To date, Congress has not accepted the Administration's proposal and continued to fund the FFP program in Agriculture appropriations, which is currently authorized through FY2023. USAID's internal reform initiative, referred to as Transformation , calls for the merger of the Office of FFP with the Office U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) into a new entity called the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (HA) by the end of 2020. While the agency has indicated that the new HA will administer nonemergency programming, there are few details on how it will do so. FFP programs fall into two distinct committee jurisdictionsâAgriculture and Foreign Affairs/Relationsâmaking congressional oversight of programs more challenging. No one committee receives a comprehensive view of all FFP programming, and the committees of jurisdiction sometimes have competing priorities.

Summary: For additional information, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food Assistance: An Overview .

For more than 65 years, the U.S. Congress has funded international food assistance through the Food for Peace program (FFP) to alleviate hunger and improve global food security. U.S. food assistance comes in the form of in-kind food commodities purchased in the United States and shipped overseas, and through market-based approaches. Market-based approaches include purchasing food in foreign local and regional markets and then redistributing it, and providing food vouchers and cash transfers that recipients can use to buy food locally.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the lead development and humanitarian arm of the U.S. government, administers the majority of U.S. international food assistance. Within the agency, the Office of Food for Peace manages the FFP program, which provides both emergency and nonemergency food aid. Nonemergency programming once represented a significant portion of FFP, but this portion has declined (from 83% in FY1959 to 11% in FY2018) as emergency needs have continued to rise and FFP has received emergency funding from additional accounts (see Figure 3 ). The Bureau for Food Security (BFS), within USAID, manages agricultural development and nutrition programs, which support food security goals but are not considered food aid under the umbrella of the Feed the Future Initiative (FTF). The distinctions between FFP nonemergency programs and BFS development programs are found in authorizing legislation, funding flows, and congressional jurisdiction.

This report focuses primarily on FFP's nonemergency activities. It explains current programs, legislative history, and funding trends. The report also discusses how FFP nonemergency programs fit within the broader food aid and food security assistance framework, and the future of FFP nonemergency programs in the context of related Trump Administration proposals. Finally, this report explores the challenges Congress faces in conducting oversight of U.S. international food assistance programs, which fall under two separate congressional committee jurisdictions.

In FY2018, Food for Peace (both emergency and nonemergency programs) operated in 59 countries and reached more than 76 million recipients. However, FFP had active nonemergency programs in only 15 countriesâmost of which were in sub-Saharan Africa, with the remaining in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia.

FFP nonemergency programs seek to aid the poorest of the poor by addressing the root causes of hunger and making vulnerable communities more resilient to shocks, both natural and human-induced. Programs generally last five years and, according to FFP, "aim to reduce chronic malnutrition among children under five and pregnant or lactating women, increase and diversify household income, provide opportunities for microfinance and savings, and support agricultural programs that build resilience and reduce vulnerability to shocks and stresses." Common types of FFP nonemergency activities include in-kind food, cash or voucher distributions, educational programs to encourage dietary diversity and promote consumption of vitamin- and protein-rich foods, farmer training on agricultural value chains and climate-sensitive agriculture, and conflict sensitivity training for local leaders.

In building resilience in vulnerable communities, FFP seeks to reduce the need for future emergency assistance and pave the way for communities to pursue longer-term development goals. With few exceptions, nonemergency programs are implemented by nongovernmental organization (NGO) partners. Examples of the range of FFP nonemergency programs include the following: Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities (SHOUHARDO III ) in Bangladesh began in 2015 to improve "gender equitable food and nutrition security and resilience of the vulnerable people" in two of the country's regions. USAID identified four areas of concern on which interventions should focus: gender inequality and women's disempowerment, social accountability, youth, and climate adaptation. CARE, a nonprofit organization that formed in post-World War II to distribute food packages in Europe, implements SHOUARDO III. The program's goal is to reach 384,000 participants through activities that address climate change and disaster resilience training, supplementary food distributions for pregnant and lactating women, youth skills training, the organization of microenterprise groups, and water supply and sanitation activities, among others. SHOUHARDO III is one of the few FFP nonemergency programs that includes a monetization component. In FY2018, SHOUHARDO received more than $18 million in FFP Title II funding. The program is scheduled to run through the end of FY2020. Tuendelee Pamoja II in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was initiated in 2016 to improve food security and resilience among 214,000 households in selected provinces, with a special focus on women and youth. Food for the Hungry, an international Christian relief, development, and advocacy organization, implements the program. Interventions include the distribution and testing of new varieties of soybeans, beans, and maize; construction of planting terraces to reduce land erosion; training on fishing practices; literacy and numeracy education; and youth training in wood- and metal-working; among others. The program received more than $15 million in FFP Title II funding in FY2018 and is scheduled to run through the end of 2021. Njira Pathways to Sustainable Food Security in Malawi began in 2014 with the aim of improving food security for more than 244,000 vulnerable people in selected districts in Malawi. The programs were designed to address Feed the Future (FTF)-established food security goals for the country and to complement other FTF programs and development goals under USAID/Malawi Mission's Country Development Cooperation Strategy. Project Concern International (PCI), a global development program established in 1961, implements the Njira project; its activities include distributing livestock and offering animal health services to improve livestock production, increasing access to and participation in women's empowerment savings and loan groups, conducting farmer training to combat Fall Armyworm, and distributing food rations to children under five. In FY2018, the Njira project received nearly $2 million in FFP Title II nonemergency funds and nearly $2.5 million in Community Development Funds (CDF). The project is slated to run through late 2019.

Food for Peace Nonemergency Programs in the Context of U.S. International Food Assistance

FFP nonemergency programs are largely used to support the transition in food security assistance between short-term emergency food assistance programs and longer-term agricultural development and nutrition assistance programs. They share a close relationship with FFP emergency programs and the BFS-led Feed the Future development programs, but distinct differences exist among these aid channels, which are designed to be complementary and undertaken sequentially (see Figure 1 ) .

While Food for Peace nonemergency programs address the root causes of food insecurity and seek to build resilience among vulnerable populations, FFP Title II emergency programs seek to distribute immediate, life-saving food and nutrition assistance to populations in crisis. Assistanceâprimarily through food procured in the United States but also through market-based approachesâis meant for those suffering from hunger or starvation as a result of crises. Programs are short, many running between 12-18 months, and are primarily implemented by the United Nations' World Food Programme. In FY2018, some of FFP's largest Title II emergency responses were staged in South Sudan ($335 million), Yemen ($273 million), and Ethiopia ($198 million).

As noted, Food for Peace works with the poorest of the poor, focusing on building resilience. Feed the Future works with communities ready for longer-term development and focuses more on agricultural systems strengthening and market development. Catholic Relief Services, for example, currently implements both FFP nonemergency and Feed the Future development programs in Ethiopia. The FFP Ethiopia nonemergency program includes rehabilitating small-scale irrigation systems, conducting assessments on conflict management, and developing "livelihood pathways" for beneficiaries. The FTF development program includes financial education and services training, the establishment of marketing groups, and training for local leaders on youth participation in economic and social development. In this case, Food for Peace is supporting resilience strategies and baseline asset-building, while Feed the Future is encouraging more diverse market engagement and economic development.

The use of Food for Peace nonemergency assistance and Feed the Future development assistance can depend on their different statutory requirements and flexibilities. For example, all FFP nonemergency programs funded with Title II must include in-kind food distributions; FTF programs do not. FFP nonemergency programs have funding flexibility that FTF development programs do not: funding may be reprogrammed from nonemergency to emergency responses if a shock occurs during the course of a nonemergency program. This flexibility exists because Title II funding is authorized for both emergency and nonemergency programing (see the " Legislation " section). For example, a five-year FFP nonemergency program in Madagascar shifted some of its funding to emergency programming in 2015, when the southern part of the country was hit with a drought. Once emergency food needs were met in those areas, the program was able to refocus on nonemergency programming.

In some instances, Food for Peace nonemergency and Feed the Future development programs pursue similar or overlapping programming. Where such overlap occurs, implementing partners often duplicate programs deliberately to smooth the sustainable sequencing of food security programs, from FFP nonemergency to FTF development programming.

As Food for Peace nonemergency programs are meant to bridge the gap between emergency programming and longer-term development programs, FFP seeks to coordinate both within the office and with its BFS counterparts. Within FFP, the office's geographic teams manage nonemergency programs alongside emergency programs, and in many cases the same staff manage both types of programs. For example, an FFP officer managing a nonemergency program in Haiti would also be managing emergency programs in the country. This integration allows the office's geographic staff to leverage resources and approaches between nonemergency and emergency programs.

FFP officers also work with their Bureau for Food Security counterparts, both in Washington, DC, and in the field. FFP is a part of the Feed the Future target country selection process, and BFS works closely with FFP on its annual country selection process for new countries for FFP nonemergency resources and the subsequent program design for those countries. FFP also uses FTF indicators to measure progress toward programmatic goals in its program evaluations. In the field, BFS and FFP officers collaborate.

The Food for Peace program was established in 1954 with the passage of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-480). Title II of the act authorized the use of surplus agricultural commodities to "[meet] famine or other urgent relief requirements" around the world and provided the general authority for FFP development programs. Now referred to as the Food for Peace Act, the program has evolved to reflect changes in domestic farm policy and in response to foreign policy developments.

Congress authorizes the majority of international food assistance programs, including the FFP program, in two pieces of legislation:

The Farm Bill. Typically renewed every five years, legislation commonly referred to as the farm bill is a multiyear authorization that governs a range of agricultural and food programs. The majority of farm bill-authorized programs are domestic, but Title III includes the Food for Peace Act as Subtitle A. In the most recent farm bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-334 ), Congress authorized programs through FY2023. The Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA). Congress enacted the Global Food Security Act of 2016 ( P.L. 114-195 ) to direct the President to coordinate the development of a whole-of-government global food security strategy and to provide food assistance pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.). The GFSA also amended Sections 491 and 492 of the 1961 Act (22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.) to establish the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) under International Disaster Assistance authorities, which FFP uses to provide emergency food assistance primarily through market-based approaches such as local and regional procurement (LRP), vouchers, and cash transfers for food. An extension of GFSA ( P.L. 115-266 ) was enacted in 2018 and authorizes programs through FY2023.

Food for Peace nonemergency programs, in particular the Title II in-kind commodity purchase and distribution components, have historically received considerable bipartisan support from a broad domestic constituency. This support is a result of the program's link to U.S. farmers and shippers through the farm bill's statutory requirements. While FFP emergency responses make up the majority of the U.S. in-kind programming, the nonemergency food assistance programs share the same domestic connections. In a prepared statement for the House Agriculture Committee in relation to a 2017 hearing on the farm bill, the chairperson of the USA Rice Farmers Board shared the board's support of U.S. international food aid programs, noting that while U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) commodity procurement-purchases comprise only between 1% and 2% of total rice exports, "it is important to the industry that we continue to play a strong role in providing our nation's agricultural bounty to those in need." In written testimony for the House Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, the Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy at Mercy Corps stated that "from our decades of experience working in fragile states, we have found non-emergency FFP programs to be the leading US government tool, for building the resilience of families and communities to food insecurityâ¦. [W]ith these investments, we can prevent and mitigate food security crises." Further, FFP has a close relationship with the U.S. maritime industry as a result of longstanding but evolving requirements that a percentage of FFP commodities be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels. These agricultural cargo preference requirements can sometimes create tension; the U.S. Maritime Administration asserts that agricultural cargo preference is critical to maintaining U.S. sealift capacity while FFP often expresses concern about how the increased cost of adhering to agricultural cargo preference affects its ability to meet the needs of the world's most food insecure populations. Despite this tension, the maritime industry remains engaged and active in FFP programming and has been a vocal advocate for the commodity-based programs. These historic links to the U.S. agriculture and maritime industries have been a significant factor when Congress considers legislation.

Consistent with the two authorization vehicles described above, food assistance funds are appropriated through both Agriculture appropriations (for farm bill-authorized programs) and Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations (for GFSA-authorized programs). Funds for nonemergency programs come from two accounts:

The Food for Peace Title II Grants account within the Foreign Agricultural Service in Agriculture appropriations. FFP has received Food for Peace Title II Grants since its establishment. The Development Assistance (DA) account within SFOPS appropriations. FFP receives DA fundsâdesignated as Community Development Funds (CDF)âfrom BFS to complement its Title II nonemergency resources and improve coordination between FFP and BFS. First legislated in FY2010, Congress intended CDF funds be used to help FFP reduce its reliance on monetizationâthe practice of partners selling U.S. commodities on local markets and using the proceeds to fund nonemergency programs. The level of CDF that FFP receives from BFS is not required by law; however, Congress has designated funds for CDF in the report accompanying annual appropriations (sometimes referred to as a "soft earmark") to which USAID has adhered each fiscal year.

FFP receives additional funding for emergency food programs through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account within SFOPS appropriations. In FY2010, FFP started receiving IDA funds for the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to supplement its Title II emergency funds.

In FY2018, Food for Peace received nearly half of its resources through Agriculture appropriations (see Figure 2 ). Of its overall funding, FFP used 11% ($431 million) for nonemergency programsâfunded both through Title II and CDFâand 89% ($3.250 billion) for emergency programs. As previously mentioned, this was a marked change from the early years of the FFP program. When the Title II program was established, nonemergency programs constituted 65% of funding. While their share of overall programming rose in the first few years of the programâin 1959, they made up 83% of Title II programmingâthe share steadily declined in the following decades. By 2007, nonemergency programming accounted for 20% of Title II funds (see Figure 3 ). The following year, Congress established a minimum level (in U.S. dollars) of nonemergency food assistance in the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ). The nonemergency minimum has been maintained in subsequent authorizations but has fallen by $10 million since it was first added to the bill (see Table 1 ). The most recent farm bill ( P.L. 115-334 ), enacted in December 2018, set the minimum level of nonemergency food assistance at $365 million but allowed for Community Development Funds and the Farmer-to-Farmer Program funds to be counted toward the minimum.

The 116 th Congress may be interested in a number of issues related to Food for Peace nonemergency programs. Areas of interest may include proposed and ongoing reforms to the FFP program funding and structure that could change both how nonemergency programs fit into the broader landscape of U.S. international food assistance programs, and the means through which the program is funded.

Proposed Elimination of Title II Funding and Food Aid Reform

Since FY2018, the Trump Administration has proposed eliminating funding for the entire FFP Title II programâboth emergency and nonemergency programsâon the basis that doing so would "streamline foreign assistance, prioritize funding, and use funding as effectively and efficiently as possible." In its FY2020 foreign assistance budget request, the Administration referred to providing Title II food aid as "inefficient." Instead of relying on the FFP Title II program, which is funded through Agriculture appropriations, the Administration suggests providing food assistance solely through accounts funded by SFOPS appropriations. The Administration also proposes reducing SFOPS appropriations, indicating a preference for an overall reduction in funding for U.S. foreign assistance, including international food assistance programs.

The Trump Administration is not the first to suggest significant changes to U.S. international food assistance programs. The Obama Administration also pursued a food aid reform agenda, proposing in its FY2014 budget request to shift all FFP Title II funds into three SFOPS assistance accounts. According to the Obama Administration, the proposed changes would have increased the flexibility, timeliness, and efficiency of U.S. international food assistance and allowed the programs to reach an additional "4 million more people each year with equivalent funding."

While to date Congress has not accepted any proposals to defund Title II, there have been efforts on Capitol Hill to change parts of the Title II program. For example, in the 115 th Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairperson Bob Corker and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairperson Edward Royce both introduced versions of the Food for Peace Modernization Act, with bipartisan support ( S. 2551 and H.R. 5276 , respectively). The two bills would have made changes to the Title II programâincluding eliminating the requirement to purchase all Title II food aid commodities in the United States and removing the monetization requirementâin an effort to reduce cost and gain efficiency. Neither bill received further consideration, but some elements of the proposals were incorporated into the most recent farm bill ( P.L. 115-334 ).

In FY2018 and FY2019, Congress did not accept Administration proposals to eliminate Title II funding, and for FY2020, the House-passed Agriculture appropriations include $1.85 billion for Title II. As Congress considers its annual appropriations and future authorization measures, Members may consider how to balance calls for reform with the priorities and vested interests of domestic constituencies, including agricultural interests and development groups, and how the often conflicting viewpoints may affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the Title II nonemergency programs.

Nonemergency Programs in the Context of USAID's Transformation Initiative40

As part of USAID's internal reform initiative, referred to as Transformation , the agency is planning to merge the FFP Office with the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) into a new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (HA). OFDA is currently responsible for leading the U.S. government response to humanitarian crises overseas. In creating a new HA bureau, USAID would be consolidating its food (currently administered by FFP) and nonfood (currently administered by OFDA) humanitarian responses in an effort to remove potential duplication and present a more unified and coherent U.S. policy on humanitarian assistance on the global stage. In the new HA bureau, FFP and OFDA would no longer remain separate from one another with independent functions; instead, they would be consolidated into one bureau comprising eight officesâthree geographically focused (Africa; Asia, Latin America, and Caribbean; and Middle East, North Africa, and Europe) and five technical (covering issues such as award management, program quality, donor coordination, and business operations, among others). (See Appendix B .)

The humanitarian community remains engaged with the U.S. government on this proposal and its potential effects on the broader efficiency, effectiveness, and coordination of humanitarian assistance. Some food assistance stakeholders have raised concerns about the dissolution of FFP and its potential impact on Title II programming. According to a USAID congressional notification on the intent to form the HA bureau, Title II nonemergency programming would remain in the new HA bureau, though it is unclear how that arrangement will look in practice. For the moment, USAID is planning to have the new HA geographic offices be responsible for managing both emergency and nonemergency Title II programming; however, a number of details need to be worked out by USAID leadership. These include whether and how nonemergency programs will be incorporated into larger disaster risk reduction efforts, and how the nonemergency programs will fit in with the programs to be managed by the new Bureau for Resilience and Food Security.

As part of its Transformation process, USAID has held a number of consultations with Members of Congress. While the structural redesign is underway (HA is currently slated to be operational by the end of 2020, though implementation timelines may change), Congress has opportunities to provide feedback and guidance to the agency as it finalizes office-level details.

Separation of Food for Peace Nonemergency and Feed the Future Development Programs

Some policymakers have questioned why two different offices within USAID are responsible for similar programming, and have suggested either moving FFP's nonemergency portfolio to BFS or vice versa. In either consolidation scenario, the program could potentially benefit from increased coordination. For example, having one office manage all programming and present a unified voice to all stakeholders (including Congress) may reduce communication and coordination challenges. However, USAID could face significant tradeoffs in both consolidation scenarios.

If FFP's nonemergency portfolio were to move to USAID's Bureau for Food Security, the programs could lose their focus on serving the most vulnerable populations. Unlike Food for Peace, Feed the Future does not focus its programs on the poorest of the poor, does not include in-kind food distributions in its projects, and cannot shift its funding to meet emergency needs should a shock occur. Were FFP nonemergency programming to move to BFS, these unique FFP qualities may be deprioritized in favor of the more traditional development model BFS has pursued with its Feed the Future programs. Additionally, during a disaster FFP often uses its nonemergency programs as a component in the overall emergency response, by either diverting existing resources or injecting new emergency resources to support an early response.

Conversely, if BFS programming were to move to the Office of Food for Peace, the FTF programs could be deprioritized in favor of emergency programming. As discussed earlier, emergency programs have grown to dwarf nonemergency programming in funding terms (see Figure 3 ). If emergency funding needs continue to rise consistent with their previous trajectory, the demands from the emergency portfolio could outpace and overtake the traditional development assistance, jeopardizing the FTF gains already made and risking future programming.

Use of Community Development Funds (CDF)

Since FY2010, Food for Peace has received Community Development Funds (CDF) from the Development Assistance account in SFOPs appropriations to support its nonemergency programs and reduce reliance on monetization. Over the years, FFP has grown to rely on CDF to pursue the full range of its nonemergency programs. Implementing partners have raised concerns that if the level of CDF funding were to drop, USAID would have to choose between routing CDF funds through BFS to FFP and fully funding BFS-administered programs. If FFP lost its CDF funding, it would likely need to return to using monetization to partially fund its nonemergency programs. To address this potential challenge, Congress could consider changes in legislation, including but not limited to the following:

Increasing flexibilities in Title II funding , including the authorized level of Section 202(e). An increase in flexibility through Section 202(e) could mimic the programmatic flexibilities FFP has gained through the use of CDF, including interventions that do not rely on in-kind food distributions. Proposed increases in flexibility have been opposed by some FFP stakeholders, in particular U.S. agricultural commodity groups. Designating in law a specific CDF level for FFP âinstead of using the "soft earmark" in the bill reportâthereby guaranteeing a secure line of funding for FFP's nonemergency programs. This approach would likely be supported by the implementing partner community, as it would provide some assurance that the CDF level would remain constant from year to year. However, this approach could negatively affect Feed the Future programming if the overall DA funding were to drop. It also would institutionalize the coordination between FFP and BFS that the sharing of CDF has already propagated.

The various U.S. international food assistance programs fall under two separate congressional committee jurisdictions, which some argue can reduce Congress's ability to pursue comprehensive, integrated oversight of these programs. In the nonemergency context, FFP Title II-funded programs fall under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees, but the CDF-funded programming falls under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations Committees and SFOPS Appropriations Subcommittees (see Appendix A ). FFP reports on both of these in the International Food Assistance Report (IFAR), the farm bill-mandated annual report to Congress, even though it is not required to include Community Development Funds. This report offers a complete perspective on the FFP nonemergency programs, but it does not contextualize the programs with the entire U.S. international food assistance landscape. The IFAR does not include Emergency Food Security Program or Feed the Future reporting, because both are overseen by the Foreign Affairs/Relations Committees and are subject to different reporting requirements. As such, no single report currently mandated by Congress captures the entirety of international food assistance.

The two oversight jurisdictions also present unique challenges to USAID. The two committee groupings often have different (and sometimes competing) priorities, the push and pull of which can sometimes lead USAID and its implementing partners to shoulder a higher administrative burden than other programs that reside in only one jurisdiction. For example, FFP was subject to eight Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits from 2014 to July 2019, covering issues from the monitoring and evaluation of cash-based food assistance programs to how U.S. in-kind commodities are shipped and stored. By comparison, BFS was the primary subject for one GAO audit in that same time-frame.

With enactment of the 2018 farm bill ( P.L. 115-334 ), Food for Peace Title II nonemergency programs are authorized through FY2023. However, the Administration continues to propose the elimination of the FFP Title II program in its annual budget requests. By moving forward with USAID's Transformation initiative, the Administration is implementing changes to organizational structures through which nonemergency food assistance programs are administered. Congress may consider addressing its priorities for FFP nonemergency programs in annual appropriations legislation, stand-alone bills that address certain components of the program, and Transformation -related consultations.

Appendix A. U.S. International Food AssistanceÂ Programs

This graphic illustrates the suite of U.S. international food assistance programs, including their administering agency and congressional jurisdiction. The programs highlighted in this graphic are the nonemergency programs discussed in this report.

Appendix B. USAID's Proposed Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance