efp report final

7/30/2019 EFP Report Final

1/44

Hungry in New York:

A 2012 Study of Emergency Food Programs

in NYSColleen. St. Clair

Mark A. Dunlea

Hunger Action Network of New York State

December 2012

Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduction 1

Methodology 3

Acknowledgements 4

Recommendations 5

Key Findings 10

Analysis of Survey Results 12

Glossary of Terms 40

Survey Instrument 42


2/44

1

Introduction

Started in 1982, Hunger Action Network is a membership organization of emergency food providers,advocates, faith groups and low-income individuals whose goal is to end hunger and its root causes,including poverty, in NYS. Over the last three decades Hunger Action has had the dual goals of reducinghunger today (e.g., increase funding for emergency food, strengthening the food stamp programs, creatingmore community gardens) while promoting long-term solutions such as universal health care, living wagejobs and affordable housing.

Hunger Action Network was organized by the states emergency food programs (EFPs) and food banks toserve as the public advocacy voice of the anti-hunger movement. Today, there are approximately 3,000food pantries and soup kitchens in the state serving an estimated three million New Yorkers annually.

As part of our 30th anniversary, we decided to conduct a survey of EFPs to assess their present needs andbarriers they experience in helping to feed New Yorkers. Our first survey of EFPs was done in 1991. Wedid our first survey of EFP guests in 1987.

The survey information will be used to help shape Hunger Action Network's advocacy efforts, includinghow better to meet the needs of EFPs.

Throughout its 30 year history, Hunger Action has played a critical role in helping EFPs innovate to betterassist their guests in combating hunger, based on feedback such as surveys from EFPs. Hunger ActionNetwork has taken a statewide leadership role in helping EFPs add additional services (e.g., assistingguests in obtaining food stamps and other nutritional programs, promotion of guests growing food) whilealso providing training in advocacy skills. Hunger Action has played a pivotal role both in increasing statefunding for emergency food programs and changing how such funds can be utilized (e.g., used for capitalequipment, operating expenses, fruits and vegetables).

Hunger Action has promoted the development of EFP vegetable gardens and EFPs participation in Growan Extra Row projects; secured government funding for the capital equipment and operating needs ofEFPs; increased the use of food stamps at farmers markets; promoted an increased emphasis on nutritionalquality and purchase of local foods; and, assisted in the development of a low-income component ofCommunity Supported Agriculture projects in NYC. It started the largest gleaning project in NYS.

Distribution of food by EFPs primarily addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of hunger. HungerAction has always pursued the goal of moving the focus of anti-hunger efforts from charity to justice,recognizing that ending hunger requires solving the problems that cause hunger (e.g., lack of income, highrent and utility bills, poverty or below-living wage jobs).

Overview of Hunger and Poverty

Many emergency food programs - soup kitchens and food pantries - were organized following the 1981federal budget cuts, which made deeply slashed funding for many human service programs includingnutrition and housing. The loss of housing subsidies was especially critical, as households were forced todivert part of their food budget to pay for their shelter.

In 1977, a few years prior to these federal cuts, the Field Foundation had reported to Congress that hungerin America had been substantially reduced over the previous decade due to programs such as food stamp


3/44

2

(now SNAP), Head Start, School lunch and breakfast and WIC (Women, Infants and Children). By 1982,the Harvard-based Physician's Task Force on Hunger reported that hunger was at epidemic proportions.We don't know how many EFPs there were in NYS in 1980, but in all of NYC there were only 3. By 1988there were more than 600. Today there are around 1,300.

According to data released in September 2012 by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),the %age of food insecure households in NYS increased from 12.9% in 2008-2010 to 13.3% in 2009-2012. New York however was slightly below the national average of 14.6% food insecurity. 5.1% of NewYork households were considered to have very low food security households with the deepeststruggles, regularly skipping meals, or cutting the amounts eaten below what is needed.

14.8% of children under the age of 18 are food insecure in NYS, according to a study by FeedingAmerica, a national anti-hunger organization.

USDA also found that more than 5.1% of Americans had used a food pantry in the last year, while .6%

used a soup kitchen. 7.7% of households nationally with children had used a food pantry. Among thoseliving below poverty, 19.8% had used a pantry in the last year; 17.5% if income below 130%; and 14.4%if income below 185%.

Nearly a third of the state are either poor (15%) or near poor (below 150% of the poverty level); 40% ofthe residents in NYC fall below 200% of poverty. A majority of children in the cities of Rochester(53.9%), Syracuse (53.0%) and Schenectady (50.8%) "officially" live in poverty. The poverty rate forchildren in Buffalo is 46.8%, while in Albany it is 37.0%.

Nationwide, of the number of people receiving assistance from charitable food programs in 2010, 42% areblack, 27% are Hispanic, 23% are white (Hunger in America 2010. Feeding America)

Feeding America does regular surveys of hunger through their national food bank network. Some findingsabout EFP guests from their 2010 report:

70% of households have incomes below the federal poverty line. The average monthly income for client households is $940. 79% of households report incomes below the official federal poverty level; 88% of clients report

income in the prior month below 130% of poverty, the eligibility level for SNAP; 96% reportincomes below 185% of the poverty level.

12% of households report receiving cash assistance (welfare) 31% of households report receiving Social Security benefits and 18% report receiving federal

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Only 7% of households report receiving unemployment insurance payments in the prior month. 36% of households have one or more adults who are working. 38% of clients are under 18 years old. 10% of client households are homeless. More than one-third of client households report having to choose between food and other basic

necessities, such as rent, utilities and medical care. One in four client households (24%) do not have health insurance and nearly half of our adult

clients report that they have unpaid medical and hospital bills. Thirty percent of households report having at least one member of their household in poor health.


4/44

3

54.4% of pantries, 33.5% of kitchens, and 31.4% of shelters receive food from TEFAP. 41% of client households are receiving SNAP (formerly food stamps) benefits, an increase of 64%

over 2006. 54% of client households with children ages 0 to 3 participate in the WIC program, compared to

51% in 2006. Among households with school-age children, 62% participate in the federal school lunch program

and 54% participate in the school breakfast program. 68% of pantries, 42% of soup kitchens, and 15% of emergency shelters rely solely on volunteers

and have no paid staff. 55%, are faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious

organizations; 33 % are other types of nonprofit organizations.

Among the key findings of Feeding America's report:

Emergency food from pantries is no longer being used simply to meet temporary acute food needs.

A majority of the clients being served by the Feeding America network (54%) have visited a foodpantry in six or more months during the past year. Seniors are disproportionately represented among clients visiting pantries in six or more months

during the prior year. Over half (56%) of elderly clients aged 65+ are recurrent clients, meaningthey have used a pantry every month within the past year.

METHODOLOGY

The survey was mailed in early September to a list provided by the NYS Department of Health's Bureauof Nutrition Risk Reduction - Hunger Prevention and Nutrition Assistance Program of 2,500 emergencyfood programs. These programs are receiving or have received state HPNAP funding. Programs wereprovided the options of filling out and mailing in the survey; filling out the survey on line; or, beinginterviewed by Hunger Action Network. Most mailed in the survey, though perhaps 25% were doneonline. Hunger Action Network also distributed information about the survey through e-mails, itswebpage and face book, and contacts with EFP coalitions, and local meetings. 560 surveys were filledout. If programs operated both a soup kitchen and a food pantry, they were asked to fill out a separatesurvey for each.

The list of the counties participating is included below; virtually all counties participated and there wasgood geographical representation. Obtaining a 20% response rate from EFPs is very representative.However, since the mailing list was of programs funded through HPNAP, the responses under representEFPs outside of the HPNAP and food bank system. The respondents were also self-selected rather thanbeing determined randomly. It is likely that the more established programs with a strong core staff or

volunteer base with good record keeping were more able to fill out the survey.

Surveys were submitted by EFPs in 61 of the state's 62 counties: Albany - 12; Allegany - 5; Bronx - 39;Broome - 5; Cattaraugus - 7; Cayuga - 9; Chautauqua - 5; Chemung - 6; Chenango - 4; Clinton - 1;Columbia - 4; Cortland - 2; Delaware - 1; Dutchess - 13; Erie - 29; Essex -5; Franklin - 7; Fulton - 1;Genesee - 5; Greene - 3; Herkimer - 3; Jefferson - 7; Kings - 44; Lewis - 2; Livingston - 3; Madison - 2;Monroe - 29; Montgomery - 3; Nassau - 18; New York - 34; Niagara - 6; Oneida - 10; Onondaga - 17;Ontario - 8; Orange - 10; Orleans - 5; Oswego - 4; Otsego - 3; Putnam - 5; Queens - 29; Rensselaer - 5;Richmond (SI) - 5; Rockland - 9; Saratoga - 7; Schenectady - 7; Schoharie - 4; Schuyler - 1; St. Lawrence


5/44

4

- 4; Steuben - 10; Suffolk - 64; Tioga - 4; Tompkins - 3; Ulster - 7; Warren - 2; Washington - 4; Wayne -5; Westchester - 13; Wyoming - 5; Yates - 2

In developing the survey, Hunger Action Network reviewed surveys it has conducted of EFPs over thelast 25 years. It also reviewed survey questions developed by NYC Coalition Against Hunger, IslandHarvest, and food banks associated with Feeding America. These and other anti-hunger reports were alsoreviewed to identify existing demographics of EFPs and their guests; some of that information is includedhere.

Acknowledgements

Draft copies of the survey were distributed to emergency food programs and advocates for their input.This include New York City Coaltion Against Hunger; Doreen Wohl and Hannah Lupien of the WestSide Campaign Against Hunger (New York); Christy Robb of St. John's Bread and Life (Brooklyn); Rev.Debra Jameson of FOCUS Churches in Albany; Kelly Ann Kowalski of Food for All (Buffalo);Schenectady Inner City Mission food pantry; and Denny Marsh and Amy Blauvelt of Neighbors Together

(Brooklyn). These individuals were also consulted with respect to the recommendations developed by thereport.

We also contacted Feeding America to discuss their prior surveys and findings.

The Bureau of Nutrition of the NYS Department of Health provided us with contact info for EFPs.

Data analysis was done in excel. Assistance was provided by Masada Disenhouse.

The report was written by Colleen St. Clair and Mark Dunlea. Editing by Deb Catozzi.


6/44

5

RECOMMENDATIONS

Government Funding of Emergency Food Must be Increased

Funding for the various government programs that support emergency food programs - HPNAP at thestate, EFAP in NYC, TEFAP and FEMA (EFSP) nationally should be increased. We support at least the$10 million increase proposed by the NYSDOH Bureau of Nutrition, and a $3 million increase in fundingfor the food portion of EFAP.

Some of the increased government funding for EFPs should be targeted for increased support for EFP'soperating and capital equipment costs (freezers, transportation); to support the higher costs sometimesassociated with purchasing healthier food; and for local food sources. EFPs also need funding for staff,particularly to assist guests in accessing other nutritional programs and government benefits. Increasedfunding should also be used to better assist large EFPs that feed a high number of guests; present fundingformulas often fail to adequately reflect service levels.

There should be more flexibility being given to programs as to how they may spend their HPNAP funds.The HPNAP application process should be clearer and easier. One problem with HPNAP is that the foodcan be expensive especially in light of the limited amount provided to each program. Often there are notenough choices in the various food groups to meet nutrition guidelines and there is often not enough freshproduce especially outside of harvest time. Provision of fresh milk needs to be increased.

Support Services for Emergency Food Programs Needs to be Improved

NYS and NYC should better maintain updated list of EFPs and their operating hours and serviceguidelines. The State and City need to improve collection of data regarding the utilization of EFPs andbetter incorporate it into decisions regarding funding for such efforts. NYS for instance has stoppedconducting a census of EFPs.

Anti-hunger advocacy organizations need to improve the quality, simplicity and presentation of materialsfor use by EFPs and their guests.

Food drives need to do a better job on educating donors re healthy food and nutrition guidelines.

Strengthen Support for EFPS for Fundraising, nutrition education, advocacy

EFPs need more technical assistance and support for areas such as fundraising, nutrition, nutritioneducation, advocacy and client empowerment. This includes the need for funding for additional staffsupport. Technical assistance can be provided by means of webinars, seminars, conferences, and throughsite-visits by

Significant improvements have been made in recent years at the state and city level to improve nutritionstandards for emergency food. More attention needs to be paid to ensure that the organizations being paidto provide food supplies to the EFPs provide the food choices needed to implement the guidelines.Support is also needed to increase the availability of culturally appropriate foods.

Emergency food programs would benefit from increased information about how the various nutritionprograms operate and how proposed guidelines on nutrition standards affects and impacts their clienteleand the community at large.


7/44

6

Many EFPs have embraced client choice in their food distribution to recognize the dignity of their guestsand to give the clients more freedom in obtaining foods they want. Additional funding support andtechnical assistance for this effort would be helpful.

In order to assist food programs in providing assistance to their clients in obtaining federal benefits, directfood providers need access to more educational materials that are easier to understand, and available inmany languages. There must be continued efforts to educate food programs through workshops andseminars and webinars about benefit programs. Increase funding for EFP staff to assist with benefitadvocacy is needed.

More volunteers are needed at EFPs, especially for tasks other than putting food in bags. Volunteerrecruitment efforts should be better targeted to actual needs of EFPs.

Many EFPs would benefit from better coordination and networking among programs. Coordination andsharing services can improve the cost-effectiveness of programs and better enable them to expand therange of services provided to guests. It is expensive to maintain the human and capital infrastructure of

several thousand EFPs, though decentralization can make it easier for residents who have havetransportation barriers to access help in their own neighborhoods.

Government Agencies Need to Make Access to Food a Critical Part of Emergency Planning

The government needs to do more to assist EFPs in meeting food needs during emergencies and naturaldisasters. Hurricane Sandy exposed the vulnerability of food systems in major emergencies, includingwhen there is a lack of access to electricity and transportation. The Governor should create a fund forEFPs to be utilized in cases of natural disasters.

EFP Should not be Treated as the Government's First Response to Hunger.

EFPs are not the long term solutions to hunger. They should be relied upon for emergencies, not as amonthly supplement for individuals whose government benefits and paychecks are too low to support afamily. The state and local government should have a plan to reduce this reliance upon these programs,allowing them to be the last line of defense against hunger rather than the first.

NYS and local districts need to ensure that individuals in emergency food situation receive expedited foodstamps in a timely fashion in they are eligible.

Government Funding and Support for More Fruits and Vegetables Needs to be Increased

Overall government funding for food should focus on increasing access to healthy foods. This includesthe Farm Bill.

Government funding sources should routinely increase the percentage of purchased emergency food thatis used for healthy, local fruits and vegetables. Government funding should switch from highly processedto minimally processed shelf-stable food when appropriate (i.e. beef stew/mac&cheese to dry beans andbrown rice.)

EFAP in NYC should be improved to provide fresh produce, reduce the amount of unhealthy foods, suchas macaroni and cheese, and improve ordering flexibility.

As a means to increase access to local fruits and vegetables by low-income individuals, direct salepartnerships between regional farmers and low-income residents needs to be encouraged by supporting


8/44


9/44

8

Program)to adjust their application forms to include an Opt In option that allows applicants to designatetheir interest in being enrolled in if they meet eligibility requirements.

More funding is needed for government and community group efforts to educate individuals about their

eligibility for food stamps (Nutrition Outreach and Education Program).

The state should require all local districts to participate in all available USDA FNS waivers approved forNew York State that would enhance access, eligibility, and/or benefit allotments, such as the standardmedical deduction.

At the federal level:

- Use the USDAs Low-Cost Food Plan, rather than the Thrifty Food Plan, as the basis for SNAP benefits,effectively increasing benefits by approximately 30 percent.

- Raise the maximum shelter deduction so that SNAP benefits are adjusted to reflect variable regional

housing costs. Increase the minimum SNAP benefit so that elderly households receive at least an amountthat is equivalent in value to the floor set in the 1970s; fully allowing SNAP benefits to be adjusted whenhigh housing costs consume more of a familys income.

- Strengthen The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Increase mandatory funding for TEFAPfood and make the program more responsive to changes in need by tying funding to unemployment levels.Increase the latitude of USDA bonus commodity purchasing authority by linking it to emergency foodassistance need, as well as to support agricultural markets. Make funding mandatory for TEFAP foodstorage, distribution, and handling.

- Increase access to healthy food for the underserved. Ensure that farmers markets and participatingfarmers and Community Supported Agriculture programs (CSAs) can be equipped with cost effective

EBT transaction processing capability. Support the expansion of the Community Food ProjectsCompetitive Grant Program (CFP) for a total of $50 million over five years, to fight food insecurity byfunding community food projects - including urban agriculture projects - that help promote thosecommunities self-sufficiency.

- Maintain funding levels for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) at $25 million peryear to provide low-income seniors with coupons that can be exchanged for eligible fresh foods at farmersmarkets, roadside stands, and Community Supported Agriculture programs (CSAs). Make non-traditional(urban and community-based) agricultural production explicitly eligible for Beginning Farmer andRancher Development Program funding.

- Incentivize the purchase of healthy foods by providing at least $50 million a year in such funding and

make federal matching funds available for programs that provide incentives for the purchase of fruits andvegetables by SNAP participants

End Child Hunger

While hunger for all New Yorkers should be ended, Governor Cuomo and President Obama need tofollow through on their statements to end child hunger. Goals include.

a. Ensure that all children have access to high quality, nutritious foods, local and regional wheneverpossible, in their schools and through other child nutrition programs;


10/44

9

b Reduce obesity and diet-related diseases and ensure productive, healthy generations; and

c. Make federal child nutrition programs universal and more nutritious while reducing their administrativepaperwork and bureaucracy.

d. Increase funding for the various child nutrition programs, such as school and summer meals, and WICProgram (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women). Schools should be required to adoptprograms such as Breakfast in the Classroom to increase participation. School meals should be universal.

e. Give programs more resources and technical assistance to serve all children with nutritious food, localand regional whenever possible, produced in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.

f. Make nutrition education available to all children and caregivers through child nutrition programs.

End Hunger Among Seniors

Twenty percent of EFP guests are seniors. More than half of the programs reported an increase in seniors

in the last year.

AARP has been leading efforts to address the increasing problem of hunger among seniors. In eight years,from 2001 2009, the number of Americans age 50+ threatened by hunger soared by 79 percent, tonearly 9 million people. Nationwide. just one-third of those 60+ who are eligible for SNAP are enrolled;two-thirds are not.

Government funding for senior meals programs, including state funding for Meals on Wheels, should beincreased.

AARP's recommendations for SNAP include:

1. Establish a standard medical deduction for older adults, allowing those with higher than averageoutofpocket medical costs to use their real costs in the food stamp application.

2. Establish use of the IRS rate when calculating medical mileage in food stamp budgeting. Currently,counties can use their own rate, rather than the higher IRS rate, which can lead to a lower benefit amount.

3. Raise the minimum benefit for seniors.

At the state and local level:

1. Simplify notices sent to households, so that they are easier for recipients to understand. We recommendthe 8th grade reading level.

2. Enforce the federal mandate that all Food Stamp offices provide translation services toclients.


11/44

10

KEY FINDINGS

The number of people using emergency food programs continues to grow.

Food pantries reported an 8% increase in the number of people fed while soup kitchens saw a 2%increase. This is in addition to significant annual increases since the Great Recession started.

Over the past year, 81% of EFPs saw an increase in guests. Half saw an increase in the number ofemployed individuals. Children represent about a third of the guests.

EFPs have become institutionalized.

A majority of programs have been open at least 20 years. At least in NYC a significant number ofprograms have closed in recent years. Rather than being for sudden emergencies, many of the guestsregular income from work, retirement or safety net programs is too low to cover their monthly food costs.

Government and private funding for emergency food has been declining.

Almost 2/3 of the programs reported a decrease in funding. Both government funding and private fundinghave greatly decreased

89% of the programs reported the need to increase state funding for emergency food (HPNAP). 40%reported wanting more flexibility on how to spend HPNAP operations support. There is also the need forcapital equipment and staff.

The lack of jobs, high housing costs, and low wages are the three biggest reasons causing people to

use EFPs.

These three factors were cited by more than 80% of the respondent. About 60% of the programs identifiededucation and training, health care costs and needs, and child care as secondary issues driving demand.

Many EFPs need additional volunteers and technical assistance.

51% reported a need for volunteers in the areas of serving meals, packing bags, accounting, fun-raising,web design and legal assistance or a combination of these needs.

Most EFPs (51%) want more assistance in raising funds. Other needs are help with nutrition education(42%) and client benefit advocacy (33%)

Most EFPs incorporate nutrition standards into their programs.There has been a significant increase in the number of EFPs that utilize nutrition standards for the fooddistributed. Nutrition standards adopted by the state have been a major factor in this. 74% reportedadopting nutrition standards,

While more EFPs are helping guests obtain federal nutrition benefits, more help with outreach is

needed, as well as improving the programs.

More than 85% of the programs see helping their guests obtain federal nutrition benefits as part of theirrole. While SNAP is the program that most agencies promote, they are also involved with others. 71%


12/44

11

reported that they provide information on SNAP; 62% reported nutrition education; 56% Farmers market,56% reported WIC; 42% senior meals; 41% summer meals; and 38% school meals.

A majority (64%) of EFPs wants more information in the forms of leaflets /educational materials toprovide to their clients; 44% want the materials to be easier to understand.

21% of responders report that the greatest barrier their clients face in obtaining federal benefits is theythink they are not eligible, even though they might be. This shows a need to educate and inform clientsabout acquiring federal benefits. 20% of responders report that the greatest barrier is a lack of time/longwaits at social service offices/long travel times to city offices.

40% of the programs report that stigma / pride and documentation problems are barriers to their guestsparticipating in SNAP.

Most programs are engaged in advocacy to end hunger

More than 2/3 of EFPs report they are engaged in some form of public policy advocacy, including

encouraging their guests to participate. However, the single biggest involvement is to support communityfund drives for emergency food such as the annual CROP walk. Only about directly lobby / contact publicofficials.

A significant number of programs provide food for targeted populations

More than 40% of EFPs in the state provide at least some targeted assistance to groups with particularneeds. The largest percentage (29%), reports catering towards infants, followed by the elderly anddiabetics.

Most Programs Now Offer their Clients some Choices in the Food they receive

More than 3/5 of programs now provide clients with some choice in selecting the foods they receive.


13/44

12

ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS

1. How long has your program been in existence?

Category Number Percent1 - 5 Years 44 8%

6 - 10 Years 51 9%

11 - 15 Years 79 14%

16 - 20 Years 100 18%

21 - 25 Years 83 15%

25+ years 197 36%

TOTAL 554

Response: 36% reported 25+ years; 18% reported 16-20 years; 15% reported 21-25years; 14% reported

11-15 years; 9% reported 6-10years; and 8% reported 1-5 years.

Comment: EFPs are no longer emergency focused but have become institutionalized. The majority of

programs have been in existence for more than 20 years. The long length of operation of programs that

were initially intended to be emergency focused contributes to the wear and tear on equipment and

facilities. Many programs are being operated by the same volunteers who are now a lot older and need

more assistance.

A recent survey of EFP members of the NYC Food Bank found that 25% had closed their doors since the

Great Recession began.

2. Do you run a Food Pantry, a Soup Kitchen, Both, or Other?

Category Number Percent

Food Pantry 446 80%

Soup Kitchen 45 8%

Both a food pantry and a soup kitchen 60 11%

Other 5 1%

TOTAL 556


14/44


15/44


16/44


17/44

16

0 100 200 300 400

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Intervention / Cli ent

Advocacy

Provide referrals or

submit applications

Conduct pre-screening

Provide information /

Brochure / Classes

6.. Has your food program adopted any nutrition standards?

Response: Statewide a majority of food programs, 74 %, reported adopting nutrition standards,.

Comment: The number of programs paying attention to nutrition quality has significantly increased overtime. This is likely due both to advocacy and educational efforts among the EFP networks and theadoption of nutrition standard by government funding sources such as HPNAP.

Food Programs follow various guidelines on nutrition standards, either informally, by virtue of the foodselections that they choose when purchasing food from local Food Banks or formally, by adhering to thestandards set out by their funders and other organizations such as their respective food banks, EFAPprogram, ADA Medical Nutrition Therapy, USDA, the Hunger Prevention and Nutrition Program(HPNAP), Federal guidelines on the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Cornell CooperativeExtension, DFTA Nutrition and New York State Health Department. Many cook or serve low or nosodium canned foods, serve more chicken and fish and have reduced the use of red meat and pork, do notserve junk and snack food, serve more fresh fruit and vegetables to their clients and enquire about theirclients dietary restrictions.

Response Number Percent

Yes 379 74%

No 130 26%

TOTAL 509

7. Please rank on a scale of 1 - 5, the key barriers your customers/clients face in obtaining federalbenefits? Responders were asked to select all categories that applied.

Explanation: This information would be useful in helping to determine the barriers that the organizationsand the State should focus on helping to eliminate.

Response: Responders reported that the greatest barrier their clients face in obtaining federal benefits isthey think they are ineligible, even though they may not be.


18/44


19/44

18

8. What can Hunger Action Network of New York State (or other agencies) do to make it easier for you to

provide assistance to your clients in obtaining federal nutrition benefits?

Response: The majority of responders requested more information in the forms of leaflets /educational

materials to provide for their clients. 50% of responders have requested local contacts at the relevant

city/state/federal level. Approximately 40% requested that educational material be made easier to

understand; others expressed a need for correspondence in various languages. Responders also cited

training; and help provide more access to the Internet applications.

Comment: More outreach is needed to smaller programs, especially those without staff and outside of

urban areas. More government support is needed to put easy-to-read information into the hands of EFPs

and their guests. Financial incentives to EFP to help cover their costs would likely be cost effective.


Provide more leaflets / educational materials for your clients 317 64%

Make the educational materials easier to understand 218 44%

Provide literature in other languages 185 37%Help provide local contacts at the relevant city/state/federal agencies 249 50%

Help provide more access to the Internet for applications 101 20%Provide training to staff how the various nutrition programs operate 154 31%Total 494


20/44


21/44

20

10. If you do not distribute enough food to meet your current demand, which of the following statements

best describes your current situation?

Explanation: This question is intended to investigate the reasons why food programs do not distributeenough food to meet their current demand. Responders had to select from two choices.

a. If we had enough food available to meet our demand, we currently have enough capacity (storagespace, refrigeration, staff and/or volunteers) to safely increase the amount of food we distribute.)

b. Even if we had enough food available to meet demand, we do not have enough capacity to safelyincrease the amount of food we distribute.

Response: 81 % responded that they have enough capacity to safely increase the amount of food they

distribute..

Comment: Not having enough storage space was one of the many cited problems of the client choicesystem. Yet the vast majority of food programs reports that they have enough capacity to safely increasethe amount of food they distribute.


Yes, capacity 190 81%

No, capacity 45 19%

TOTAL 235

11. How have your resources changed in the last year (July 2011 - June 2012)?

Response: Two-thirds of food programs reported that their government and private funding has decreasedover the last year, even as the number of people being served has increased. In addition, about 1/3reported that both government and private funding has remained the same.

Comment: As demand for emergency food has soared since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007,government and private support has not only failed to keep up with the increased demand (as well as food


22/44

21

price inflation) but has actually declined. Federal funding for emergency food has had major cuts in recentyears, including TEFAP. State and city funding has been relatively flat.

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) which is administered through the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) was cut by 40% last year and has remained at the decreased levelthroughout the current funding cycle. The surplus commodity deliveries through TEFAP have declinedapproximately 70% nationwide over the past several years.

Governmentfood &money

Privatefood &money

Totalfood&money

Totalpercentage

Greatly decreased 166 32% 127 25% 131 27%

Somewhat decreased 185 36% 165 33% 189 39%

About the same 97 19% 114 23% 89 18%Somewhat increased 58 11% 79 16% 66 14%

Greatly increased 8 2% 14 3% 8 2%

Unsure / Don't know 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 514 499 483

12. Were you forced to turn away people, reduce the amount of food distributed to each person, or limityour hours of operation because you lacked enough resources?

Response: Almost 40% of the programs reported being unable to meet the demand for food. (seecomment to question 9)


23/44


24/44


25/44

24

16. If you did apply for HPNAP funding, what happened?

Response: The vast majority of the programs received HPNAP Funding

Comment: In hindsight, one limit of the survey was that it was mailed to a list of 2,500 EFPs provided bythe Bureau of Nutrition of the Department of Health, which funds HPNAP. While other outreach effortswere undertaken to reach other EFPs, the survey responses largely excludes the estimated 500 EFPsoutside of the HPNAP / Food Bank system. These tend to be smaller and new programs in more ruralareas, as well as some faith-based ones who avoid government funding.


Applied for food grant and received award 322 65%

Applied for food grant and received award, Applied foroperations support grant and received award 160 32%

Applied for operations support grant and received award 9 2%

Applied for food grant and was rejected , Applied foroperations support grant and was rejected 1 0%

Applied for operations support grant and was rejected 0 0%

Applied for food grant and was rejected , Applied foroperations support grant and received award 2 0%

Total 494

17. How could the HPNAP Program better meet your needs?

Explanation: Respondents were given an opportunity to provide comments.

Response: An overwhelming 89% of responders reported that their needs could be better met through theacquisition of more funding from the HPNAP Program, this is reflective of the large percentage of


26/44

25

respondents that cited that all sources of funding, government food and money, private food and moneyand total food and money have both somewhat decreased or partly decreased in the past fiscal year.

40% of the respondents cited the need for increased funding for operations support and for increasedflexibility in how the money could be spent.

Capital equipment; clearer/easier application process; and transportation were all cited by less than 20%of the responders.

Comment: Prior advocacy by Hunger Action Network resulted in changes to the HPNAP program toallow increased funding for capital equipment, transportation and operating support. Unless EFPs are partof the larger social service agency (e.g., CAP agency, Catholic Charities) they often lack staff. Thisrestricts their ability to offer other services that could reduce the long term need for such programs.

CATEGORY NUMBER PERCENT

More funding 444 89%

More flexibility in how to spend money 192 39%

Transportation 36 7%

Capital Equipment 80 16%

Clearer/Easier process 68 14%

Increasing HPNAP Operations supportfunding 200 40%

Other

TOTAL 498


27/44


28/44

27

19. Is there a need for increased coordination among the various emergency food programs in yourcommunity?

Explanation: Firstly, this question seeks to identify whether there is a need for increased coordinationamong various emergency food programs and secondly, it investigates whether coordination amongagencies already exist. The question also gave the respondent the opportunity to provide comments.

Response: Half of the programs reported a need for more coordination.

Comments: In some counties coordination among food programs already occurs whilst in others it is non-existent. In a handful of counties there are established Hunger Coalitions that meet regularly. Countiescited include those in the Capital District, Rockland, Orange, Westchester, Steuben, Oneida, Tompkins,Schenectady, and Staten Island. Some networking takes places at the Food Bank meetings for programs.Coordination does occur if an agency (e.g., Catholic Charities) runs a number of pantries in the samecounty. Some programs do coordinate when EFPs run out of food. Programs cited a need for more infoabout the hours and service areas of other EFPS. The meetings provide a forum for sharing successes and

working on common problems. One program said the need is partially being met by the Food Bank forNew York Citys Tiered Engagement Network (TEN) Program.

Responses Number Percent

Yes 239 48%

No 259 52%

TOTAL 498

20. What are the major problems jeopardizing the operation of your emergency food program?

Explanation:This information would be useful in determining in what areas food pantries, soup kitchen

and other organizations require technical assistance from their funders, and what corrective measures canbe undertaken and put into place.

Response: 70% of the responders reported that a lack of funding was the greatest problem jeopardizingthe operation of their emergency food program. This is reflective of the total amount of responders whoreported a decrease in all sources of food and money.

Other major problems cited were inadequate storage space; do not know when and where to obtainfunding; lack of staffing; inability to access food grants; volunteer recruitment. A very low percentage ofrespondents attributed a lack of computer training, increase in clients and safety issues as being majorproblems that would jeopardize their operation.


29/44


30/44

29

Response Number PercentFoodBank

OtherEFPs

Foundations

Electedofficials

UnitedWay

Hunger ActionNetwork of NewYork State

Yes 375 67% 126 139 133 94 108 214No 179 32% 34% 37% 35% 25% 29% 57%

Unsure 6 1%

TOTAL 560

Comment: As noted above, one limit of the survey is that the respondents almost all were receivingHPNAP funding. Thus the estimated 500 programs not receiving such funding might have respondedquite differently.

22. Do you participate in public policy advocacy/actions on behalf of low-income people?

Explanation: This question seeks to determine the programs level of participation in public policyadvocacy/action on behalf of low-income people. This information can be useful in determining the areasthat funders and organizations should focus on when providing information to the food programs.

Response: Overall, 2/3 of food programs reported that their level of participation in public policy/actionon behalf of low-income people involves the distribution of flyers and participation in hunger crop walk.Half participate in coalition development. 36% engage in letter writing campaigns/petitions.Approximately 30% invite legislators to their program; visit elected officials; and phone-in to electedofficials.

Comment: The responses indicate a strong interest among EFPs in engaging in public advocacy. More

outreach is needed by groups such Hunger Action Network to help this occur. There is a need for easier-to-participate campaigns / materials as well as more training and capacity building among EFPs inadvocacy.


31/44

30

23. Do you encourage your guests to participate in public policy advocacy/actions on behalf of low-income people?

Explanation: This question investigates as to whether food programs encourage their guest to participatein public advocacy/ actions on behalf of low-income people.

Response: Nearly 70% of the EFPs at least occasionally encourage their guests to engage in advocacyefforts.


Always 107 19%

Most of the time 58 10%

Sometimes 216 39%

Never 179 32%

TOTAL 560

24. How can Hunger Action Network of New York State make it easier for you to get involved in publicpolicy advocacy/ actions?

Explanation: This question seeks to determine in what ways Hunger Action Network of New York Statecan assist food programs in participating in public policy advocacy/actions. Currently, there is a stronginterest in policy advocacy among food programs.

Response: Responders report that boosting their food programs involvement in public policy advocacycan be achieved by means of communication, education and outreach, technical support and the provisionof materials. Via the various forms of mass communication information can be provided to food programswho in turn will present it to their clients and members of their faith based community to educate andnotify them about upcoming policy changes or actions that will affect them. A flow of information can beprovided, i.e. email, information blasts, form letters and flyers so food pantries can be provided with acontact list to enable them to know who to contact and what to advocate for. Also, requests are made forHunger Action Network of New York State to hold meetings at various times and in close proximity to


32/44

31

food programs. In addition, form letters should be provided to programs to enable them to providecommunity literacy programs and job training sessions to their clients.

Public Advocacy / Action Yes No Total Yes%

Coalition Development 228 228 456 50%Invite legislators to program 126 288 414 30%

Phone-ins to elected officials 100 296 396 25%

Letter writing campaigns/petitions 164 296 460 36%

Visited elected officials 106 286 392 27%

Other (Distribute flyers, hunger crop walk) 275 176 451 61%

25. What do you feel are the most important issues affecting low-income New Yorkers?

Explanation: The information would be useful in helping to determine the most important issues affectinglow-income New Yorkers so that the focus would be on helping to eliminate them.

Response: The lack of jobs/employment was cited as the most important issue affecting low-income NewYorkers. The second biggest issues are affordable housing and low wages.

Other important issues that affect low-income New Yorkers are health care; education and training;childcare; transportation; food stamp issues; welfare; disabilities; and welfare program issues.

Comment: Job creation targeted at low-income New Yorkers is the key policy need in dealing withhunger. There is a strong need however to increase the wages of the job provided, starting with anincrease in the minimum wage.

Most of the EFPs in NYS started as a response to the hunger crisis created by the 1981 federal budget

cuts. The biggest problem was the slashing in funding for public housing programs. Those cuts havenever been restored. Many government programs are based on the theory that a household should spendaround a third of their income on housing costs. Many low-income families are forced to spend 50% ormore on housing, leading to hunger.


Affordable Housing 436 81%

Education and Training 326 61%

Racism 105 20%

Child Care 313 58%

Low Wages 436 81%

Health Care 332 62%Job/Employment 472 88%

Welfare Program Issues 192 36%

Disabilities 198 37%

Transportation 273 51%

Food Stamp Program Issues 237 44%

Total 536


33/44


34/44

33

27. Kindly select the service you offer to clients at your Food Program? (client choice (supermarket, tablewalk-through, window or inventory list) or packing bags.

Explanation: This question seeks to ascertain the number of food pantries who employ the system ofpacking bags or client choice system.

Response: More than 3/4 of the programs now provide clients with some choice in selecting the foodsthey receive. However, a number of programs report some challenges in doing so.

Comment: The first client choice program was offered by West Side Campaign Against Hunger 19 yearsago. It has increasingly become a standard with the EFP movement in NYS, a major development. Thishas also been assisted by support by HPNAP which has provided funding for capital equipment to helpimplement a client choice programs.

However, it is likely that the response rate is overstated. This may reflect that stronger more developedprograms are the ones likely to offer client choice and they are the ones that were more likely to respond.Programs also offer a range of "client choice", some of which may ask EFP guests about their preferencesbut don't offer a formal client choice programs.

Responses Yes PercentClient Choice (Supermarket, Table, Walk-Through, etc List) 344 61%

Packaging bags 46 8%

Both Client Choice and Packing Bags 56 10%Does not Apply 114 20%

TOTAL 560


35/44


36/44


37/44

36

Yes %

Social Security 59 12%

Address, phone, email 441 92%

employment status 229 48%

Verify Family Size 415 86%Income Level 231 48%

Total responses 480

32. What are some of the main reasons clients give for obtaining emergency food?

Explanation: Respondents could cite as many reasons clients give.

Response: Almost all of the respondents (90%) reported moved, re-establishing eligibility, as among as amajor reason why clients use their program. The second most commonly cited reason was no income,followed by Public Assistance/Food Stamps ran out. Other major reasons cited were: waiting forunemployment benefits; income was used to pay utilities; income was used to pay rent; unemploymentbenefits ended; and personal emergency; laid off or lost their job; benefits lost or stolen; the lowestpercentage cited; case closed by DSS. A low 25% of responders reported benefits not received this month

as a main reason clients give for obtaining emergency food.

Comment: The responses reflect a mixture of emergency needs (recently moved, personal emergency,case closed by DSS) and long term needs (PA / food stamps ran out, paying rent)

There is a need to raise PA and food stamp benefits so that they feed the family for the entire month.

When Hunger Action Network first surveyed EFPs in 1985 about their needs, many responded that theyneeded to get DSS / HRA to provide food assistance (expedited food stamps) in a timely manner toindividuals who contacted them in emergency situations. Most program report that they are still feeding


38/44


39/44


40/44


41/44


42/44

41

Glossary of Terms

FOOD PANTRY

Food Pantries distribute non-prepared food items such as canned and fresh vegetables, fruit, and meats to

low-income individuals. Most pantries restrict how often a household can receive assistance. Onestandard is that a household may get enough food once a month to provide meals for three days.

KITCHEN (SOUP KITCHEN, COMMUNITY DINING ROOM)

A charitable program whose primary purpose is to provide prepared meals, served in the kitchen, toclients in need. Generally provides a meal to anyone who shows up.

FOOD BANK

Warehouse operations that solicits, receives, and, distributes government funded and donated food andgrocery products to emergency food programs and other charitable human-service agencies, which then

provide the products directly to clients.

HPNAP

The Hunger Prevention Network Assistance Program HPNAP provides state funding for emergency food.$29 million was provided last year. Most of the funds are given to the Food Banks and to United Way inNYC to provide nutritional food to EFPs. Funds are almost made available in direct contracts for specialprojects, which include many of the larger EFPs. Some HPNAP funds are used for operating costs andcapital equipments as well as fruit and vegetables.

EFAP

Emergency Food and Assistance Program provides funding to more than 500 soup kitchens and foodpantries citywide. $8 million is for food. EFAP staff coordinate the distribution of non-perishable foodcommodities to the members as well as monitor the emergency feeding program members to ensureadherence to EFAP and agency guidelines.

TEFAP

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a federal program which purchases commodityfood for distribution to low-income Americans through the food bank network. The amount received byeach State depends on its low-income and unemployed population. State agencies work out details ofadministration and distribution.

EFSP

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program is a national program run by FEMA which allocates funds forthe provision of food and shelter. The program is administered on a county basis, normally by UntiedWay.

SNAP

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. More commonly known as Food Stamps. Anentitlement program with income and resource tests.


43/44


44/44

43

o Food Recovery/Gleaning HPNAP contracts with seven agencies to recover or glean foodfrom farmers, restaurants, grocery stores, and other organizations.

efp report final

Documents