Independent Economic Impact of FY 2014 Ohio Food Program, Agricultural Clearance Program, & Executive Order Programs

Similar documents
Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Wright State University

BETTER DAYS THROUGH BETTER WAYS GRANT APPLICATION

CITY OF DAVIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION

Estimating the Economic Contributions of the Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative (USTAR) to the Utah Economy

Growing Stronger Together. Ready to Tender: Preparing farmers to supply to school feeding programs

Demonstration Projects to End Childhood Hunger 2016 Annual Report to Congress

Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Business Commons

CSX SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM FOR TRANSPORTING HEALTHY FOOD

Housekeeping. Today s Presenters. USDA Farm to School Program 3/14/2014

Urban Agriculture Grant Request for Proposals

Green Recovery: How Weatherization Works for Iowans Sustainable Policy Assists Struggling Families, Enhances Iowa s Economy

Request for Applications 2018

HCPSS Level III Proposal (Food and Nutrition)

FOOD PANTRY BEST PRACTICES. Scoring Guide

Although the AFID may be used to make loans, the preference is to use the AFID to make grants.

Improving Our ILLINOIS HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS. CoMMunities. 95.3b. state EcoNoMic impact 2018 B

The Economic Impacts of Idaho s Nonprofit Organizations

RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT [As Amended Through P.L , Enacted February 07, 2014]

Serving the Community Well:

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LOCAL PARKS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Innovation. Impact. Illinois.

Regional Health Care as an Economic Generator Economic Impact Assessment Dothan, Alabama Health Care Industry

Grant Programs Overview

Arizona Department of Agriculture

CHAPTER XI: SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS (SEFA) CONTENTS

SUBSIDIES IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH

Healthy Harvest Food Bank

Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance 2012 Farm Bill Policy Recommendations

CACFP Annual Sponsor Training

Testimony of. Before the House Armed Services Committee on the Economic Consequences of Defense Sequestration. October 26, 2011

FY2025 Master Plan/ FY Strategic Plan Summary

The Economic. Utah s public Research. Utah State University The University of Utah

The Economic Impacts of the New Economy Initiative in Southeast Michigan

SUBJECT: Farm to School and School Garden Expenses. State Directors Child Nutrition Programs All States

Food Enterprise Center Business Plan Executive Summary Freeport, Illinois

Community. Strengthening local communities. Relieving hunger. Enhancing resilience in the face of disasters. Developing local communities

Rhode Island Community Food Bank

Oregon New Markets Tax Credit Program

Agricultural Waste Control Regulation Intentions Paper Response Form

Update the Plate Mini Grant Program 2015

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE DOWNTOWN "CONVADIUM" PROPOSAL

Economic Impact of Hospitals and Health Systems in North Carolina. Stephanie McGarrah North Carolina Hospital Association August 2017

Economic Impact. North Dakota University System. in of the. Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report 690. August 2012

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION

The Economic Case for Incubation

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Inside: FARMERS GUIDE TO APPLYING FOR VALUE-ADDED PRODUCER GRANT (VAPG) FUNDING. August Program Basics. Examples of Eligible Projects

The Impact of DoD Contracting on Maryland s Economy. Michael Siers, Senior Economist Regional Economic Studies Institute

Implementation Plan: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

USDA Farm to School Program FY 2013 FY 2017 Summary of Grant Awards

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION MDA Grants Line:

STATE AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING S. 744 AS APPROVED BY THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Illinois Department of Agriculture Farmers Market Forums

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY STUDIES

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF $1.4 BILLION OF UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ON THE STATE OF ARIZONA

CERTIFIED PRODUCER S CERTIFICATES (CPC)

I am a Student Faculty Staff Other. 2 Installments: $240-1st half by May 15th, 2nd half by June 13th*

Feasibility Analysis for Utilizing The Benefit Bank in North Carolina

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2015 HOUSE BILL 250* Short Title: Healthy Food Small Retailer/Corner Store Act.

This presentation should take between 30 and 40 minutes, depending on how much interaction there is between the audience and the presenter.

XYZ Community Health Center

Economic Contribution of the North Dakota University System in 2015

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Reporting Requirements. September 25, :30 p.m.

Innovation Village, Cal Poly Pomona Economic Benefits Analysis City of Pomona

Public/Private Partnership Program. November 4, 2013

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION MDA Grants Line: AGRI MINNESOTA FARM TO EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM

Boston Public Health Commission Request for Proposals (RFP) April 10, 2017 April 10, 2019 (Plus third year optional) Lease of Tillable Roof Garden

Farm and Food Support Under USDA s Section 32 Program

USDA Value Added Producer Grant Program

PUTTING MICHIGAN S GOOD FOOD FORWARD.

Financing Local Infrastructure: Methodology for Developing Project Profiles

Economic Impact of the proposed The Medical University of South Carolina

2017 Legislative Priorities Agenda

About This Study The Detailed Research Methodology

DENVER FOOD ACTION PLAN

2014 Farm Bill Funding Opportunities and Provisions Affecting Local Agriculture Markets. 6/3/2014 The National Association of Towns and Townships

IWU Impact. Measuring the Economic and Civic Contributions of Indiana Wesleyan University to Grant County

From our Board Chairman

RETURN ON INVESTMENT STUDY

The University of Georgia

Conservation Security Program: Implementation and Current Issues

AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROMOTION ACT

Other State Allocations for Current Operations (3200) and (3300)

RURAL BRIEF AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 CENTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRS. Department of Agriculture

Opening a Farmers Market on Federal Property:

Guidelines for the Virginia Investment Partnership Grant Program

Education Appropriations

TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS

WFP Support to Wajir County s Emergency Preparedness and Response, 2016

Department of Agriculture FY

2017 STATUS REPORT on

Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Request for Proposal (RFP) Specialty Crop Block Grant Program Farm Bill (SCBGP-FB) Funding Opportunity Number: USDA-AMS-TM-SCBGP-G

A Performance Audit of the Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative (USTAR)

Delta County Reinventing the Economy for the Next Generation

Community Alliance for Education and Hunger Relief. AES Research Center Conference January 11, 2017

Produce Safety Educators Monthly Meeting #17 March 21, PM EDT

The OCCA s are one of the highlights of National Organic Week (NOW), held this year 3-12 October.

Slide 1. We understand how one measures success may vary within each organization. Slide 2

Transcription:

Independent of FY 2014 Ohio Food Program, Agricultural Clearance Program, & Executive Order Programs Prepared for the Ohio Association of Foodbanks by Howard Fleeter August 19, 2014 I. Overview In state fiscal year 2014, funding was provided for two programs to enhance the availability of fresh fruits, vegetables, protein items and shelf staple items to Ohio s 12 Feeding America foodbanks. These two programs are the Ohio Food Program which focuses on protein and shelf staple items, and the Agricultural Clearance Program which directs agricultural surplus items from Ohio farmers and growers to the foodbanks. Each of these programs was funded at over $7.25 million in FY14 for a combined total of over $14.5 million. In addition, in FY14, Governor Kasich also authorized through Executive Order an additional $2.053 million in funding to supplement the availability of food supplies to Ohio families. This Executive Order supported the Governor s Summer Weekend Meal programs where vulnerable children received a weekend s worth of meals and additional fresh produce and vegetables, or, in targeted rural counties where no federally funded summer meal programs were available, eligible families received a home delivered box containing 11 shelf-stable, kid-friendly meals. Not only do these programs play a vital role in providing much-needed support to Ohio families struggling with the impact of poverty and the continued slow recovery from the recession, but these programs also provide an additional benefit to the state in terms of supporting Ohio s agricultural sector. This report provides a summary of the economic impact of these programs on the state economy. II. Direct of Ohio Food Support Programs Table 1 on the following page provides an overview of expenditures, food purchased, and meals provided through each of the three Ohio food support programs in fiscal year 2014. The data in Table 1 (provided by the Ohio Association of Foodbanks) summarizes the direct economic impact of the three food support programs in Ohio. 42.1 million pounds of food is purchased at a total cost of $14.2 million. This food is sufficient to provide 32.9 million meals to needy families through Ohio s network of foodbanks (note that based on calculations made by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1.28 lbs of food is considered to constitute 1 meal). When transportation, storage and administrative costs are included, total food support program costs total $16.58 million in FY 2014. The direct economic impact of the food support programs includes the meals provided as well as the income received by the food producers, transportation and storage providers, and administrators of the programs. 1 FY2014 Independent Analysis

Table 1: Summary of Ohio Food Support Programs, FY2014 Measure Total Cost of Food Purchased Total Pounds of Food Purchased # of Meals Provided Transportation & Storage Costs Administrative Costs Total Program Costs Ohio Food Program Agricultural Clearance Program Governor Kasich Exec. Order Total State Food Support Programs $6,106,142 $6,241,982 $1,836,617 $14,184,741 9,632,766 30,417,537 2,057,259 42,107,562 7,525,598 23,763,701 1,607,234 32,896,533 $725,000 $725,000 $125,000 $1,575,000 $362,500 $362,500 $91,831 $816,381 $7,193,642 $7,329,482 $2,053,448 $16,576,572 III. Multiplier Effects In addition to direct impact, all economic activity also produces indirect and induced effects that are the result of economic multiplier effects. Multiplier effects are the result of additional expenditures made by those who are suppliers for the food support programs, as well as from purchases made by those who derive income directly or indirectly from the food support programs in Ohio. For example, when a farmer purchases fertilizers for his crops from an Ohio crop nutrient supplier, this supplier will earn profits, make investments in his or her business, and hire employees. These types of effects are termed indirect economic impact. In addition, the supplier s employees in turn spend the money they have earned on other items in the local economy, providing additional economic impact, which is termed induced economic impact. Finally, the merchants whose goods are purchased by these employees also enjoy an increase in their income, which begins another round of economic ripple effects. The economic ripple effects created by the three Ohio food support programs can be measured by using standard economic multiplier models. Multiplier models allow researchers to compute the indirect and total economic impact resulting from a particular economic initiative or industry based upon the inputting of the initial data reflecting the direct economic benefits of the initiative or industry in question. This analysis uses the RIMS II Multiplier Model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Analysis (BEA). This model is based on national and regional economic data, which is periodically updated by the BEA. The RIMS II model is the most widely used model of its type in the country. The most current RIMS II multipliers available are based upon 2002 national data and 2010 regional data. 2 FY2014 Independent Analysis

A. Agricultural Clearance Program Table 2 provides a slightly more detailed overview of the direct economic impact of the Agricultural Clearance Program. The BEA multiplier model has different multipliers for different categories of farm products. Table 2: Agricultural Clearance Program FY14 Fruit & Vegetable Purchases Commodity Pounds Purchased Cost Vegetables & Melons 26.5 million $4.6 million Fruit from Trees 3.3 million $1.0 million Berries 0.3 million $0.1 million Eggs & Protein Products 0.4 million $0.6 million Total 30.4 million $6.2 million The data in Tables 1 and 2 can be used with the RIMS II multiplier model in order to compute the total (direct + indirect) economic of the Agricultural Clearance Program on Ohio s economy in FY 2014. Table 3 provides a summary of this impact, showing the direct and indirect economic impact on output in the state of Ohio as well as the income generated and number of jobs created. Table 3: FY 2014 of the Ohio Agricultural Clearance Program Agricultural Clearance Program Direct 3 FY2014 Independent Analysis Value of Output $6.2 Million $5.7 Million $12.0 Million $2.5 Million 99 Jobs Transportation, Storage & Value of Output $1.1 million $1.4 million $2.5 million $0.8 million 18 Ag Clearance Total Value of Output $7.33 million $7.1 million $14.5 million $3.3 million 117 The data in Table 3 show that $6.2 million of direct food purchases through the Agricultural Clearance Program led to an additional $5.7 million in output produced across the state, for a total increase in output of $12.0 million. $2.5 million in additional income was generated across the state, and 99 jobs were created. In addition, $1.1 million of expenditures on

transportation, storage, and administration resulted in an additional $1.4 million in output across the state, along with nearly $800,000 in additional income and 18 additional jobs. In total, in FY14 the Agricultural Clearance Program added $14.5 million in output across Ohio, generated $3.3 million in income, and led to the creation of 117 jobs. B. Ohio Food Program Table 4 shows the results of applying the RIMS II economic multiplier models to the data in Table 1 relating to the Ohio Food Program. The multipliers for the BEA economic category Community food, housing, and other relief services were used to compute the economic impact of the Ohio Food Program as these commodities were not purchased from farmers, as is the case with the Agricultural Clearance Program. Note that the economic impact from transportation, storage and program administration activities was identical under the two programs. The data in Table 4 show that $6.1 million of direct food purchases through the Ohio Food Program led to an additional $7.6 million in output produced across the state, for a total increase in output of $13.7 million. $4.4 million in additional income was generated across the state, and 190 jobs were created. In addition, $1.1 million of expenditures on transportation, storage, and administration resulted in an additional $1.4 million in output across the state, along with nearly $800,000 in additional income and 18 additional jobs. In total, in FY14 the Ohio Food Program added $16.2 million in output across Ohio, generated $5.2 million in income, and led to the creation of 208 jobs. Table 4: FY 2014 of the Ohio Food Program Ohio Food Program Direct Value of Output $6.1 Million $7.6 Million $13.7 Million $4.4 Million 190 Jobs Transportation, Storage & Value of Output $1.1 million $1.4 million $2.5 million $0.8 million 18 OH Food Program Total Value of Output $7.2 million $9.0 million $16.2 million $5.2 million 208 4 FY2014 Independent Analysis

C. Governor Kasich Executive Orders Authorizing Additional Food Assistance Table 5 shows the results of applying the RIMS II economic multiplier models to the data in Table 1 relating to the Governor s Executive Orders authorizing additional food assistance in FY14. These additional food programs include an array of summer food assistance programs including the Backpack, Innovative, Weekend, and Summer Farmer s Market programs. The analysis of these supplemental food assistance programs used the same multipliers as were used to estimate the impact of the Ohio Food Program. The data in Table 5 show that $1.8 million of direct food purchases through the Governor s Executive Order led to an additional $2.3 million in output produced across the state, for a total increase in output of $4.1 million. $1.3 million in additional income was generated across the state, and 57 jobs were created. When the $217,000 in transportation and program administration expenditures are included, the FY14 Executive Order for additional food assistance added a total of $4.6 million in output across Ohio, generated $1.5 million in income, and led to the creation of 61 jobs. Table 5: FY 2014 of Executive Order for Food Assistance Governor Kasich Executive Order Direct Value of Output $1.8 Million $2.3 Million $4.1 Million $1.3 Million 57 Jobs Transportation & Program Value of Output $0.2 million $0.3 million $0.5 million $0.2 million 4 Exec. Order Total Value of Output $2.1 million $2.5 million $4.6 million $1.5 million 61 5 FY2014 Independent Analysis

FY14 Food Assistance Program Summary Table 6 below shows the cumulative economic impact when all of the State s FY14 food assistance programs are added together. Table 6: FY 2014 of All Ohio Food Assistance Programs All Ohio Food Assistance Programs Direct Value of Output $14.2 Million $15.5 Million $29.7 Million $8.3 Million 346 Jobs Transportation, Storage & Value of Output $2.4 million $3.1 million $5.5 million $1.7 million 40 Food Assistance Totals Value of Output $16.6 Million $18.7 Million $35.2 Million $10.0 Million 386 Jobs The data in Table 6 show that $14.2 million of direct food purchases through the three food support programs led to an additional $15.5 million in output produced across the state, for a total increase in output of $29.7 million. $8.3 million in additional income was generated across the state, and 346 jobs were created. When expenditures on transportation, storage and program administration are included, FY14 the Agricultural Clearance Program, Ohio Food Program, and the Executive Order authorized by Governor Kasich added $35.2 million in output across Ohio, generated $10.0 million in income, and led to the creation of 386 jobs in addition to the direct benefits of providing 32.9 million meals to needy Ohioans. IV. Summary of 2013 Agricultural Clearance Program Survey Results The variability of the weather and other factors makes crop yields unpredictable from one year to the next. As a result, many growers plan to over-produce in order to ensure that sufficient quantities will be available to meet the product obligations to primary vendors. The idea behind the Agricultural Clearance Program is that Ohio s foodbanks can provide an outlet for growers in the event that surplus fruit and produce is available from farmers. This public/private partnership is win-win because the foodbanks benefit from the availability of farm-fresh food and the farms benefit by seeing their surplus product used for a worthy purpose rather than go to waste. The Ohio Association of Foodbanks periodically surveys Agricultural Clearance Program participants in order to elicit additional information about the program. A summary of selected findings from the 2013 survey is provided below. 6 FY2014 Independent Analysis

80% of survey respondents have participated in the Agricultural Clearance Program for at least 5 years. 45% of participating farms have 1-9 full-time employees and 45% have 10 or more full-time employees. 58% have 1-9 part-time employees and 42% have 10 or more part-time employees. 77% of survey respondents reported that they have been able to extend work hours for employees as a result of the Clearance program, and 68% reported that they were able to hire additional workers and/or extend the workers season of employment as result of the Program. Only 5 of 26 respondents did not extend work hours or hire additional employees as a result of the Agricultural Clearance Program. Roughly half of the survey respondents attempted to quantify the impact of the Agricultural Clearance Program on additional employee hours and/or wages. 5 companies estimated the additional wages paid at a total of $969,000. 4 other companies estimated additional weekly wages, which at an estimated growing season of 20 weeks resulted in an additional $129,000 in wages paid to workers. 86% of respondents reported that the Clearance Program increased worker loyalty to their company. This was both because of the opportunity for additional work and because of the gratification that employees felt from assisting with a worthy cause. 80% of survey respondents reported that the Clearance Program allowed them to expand production. However, 100% of respondents who reported that they typically intentionally over-produce their commodities reported that the Clearance program provides them with a valuable outlet for this over-production. 76% of respondents reported that the Agricultural Clearance Program allows them to lower production costs or recover expenses in a manner that they would not otherwise be able to do. 7 FY2014 Independent Analysis