hunger safety net 2004 - food bank for new york city · 2 • hunger safety net 2004 food bank for...

PREPARED BY:

Food Bank For New York City

Division of Government Relations,

Policy and Research

Hunger SafetyNet 2004Measuring Gaps in Food Assistancein New York City

Hunger SafetyNet 2004

ABOUT THE FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY

The mission of the Food Bank For New York City is to end hunger by organizing food,information and support for community survival and dignity. The Food Bank collects,warehouses and distributes food to 1,200 nonprofit community food programsthroughout the five boroughs. The organization also offers ongoing support to its net-work of food programs through nutrition and food safety workshops, networking ses-sions and education tools that help build capacity and improve efficiency. The FoodBank serves as a resource center for member agencies, legislators, the media and thepublic.

The Food Bank’s Government Relations, Policy & Research division develops policy andconducts research to ascertain trends regarding the degree of hunger throughout thecity, socio-demographic profiles of programs and participants, changes in demand forfood assistance and community needs assessments.

A member of America’s Second Harvest, The Nation’s Food Bank Network, the FoodBank provides 67 million pounds of food annually to our network of community foodprograms citywide including soup kitchens, food pantries, and shelters. The food pro-vided helps programs to serve more than 240,000 meals each day to individuals andfamilies seeking emergency food assistance to avoid going hungry.

© Copyright 2004 by the Food Bank For New York City

Main Office & WarehouseHunts Point Cooperative Market355 Food Center DriveBronx, NY 10474-7000Phone: 718-991-4300Fax: 718-893-3442

Manhattan Office90 John Street Suite 702New York, NY 10038-3239Phone: 212-566-7855Fax: 212-566-1463

www.foodbanknyc.org

Hunger SafetyNet 2004Measuring Gaps in Food Assistancein New York City

Hunger SafetyNet 2004

PREPARED BY:

Food Bank For New York City

Division of Government Relations,

Policy and Research

iv • Hunger Safety Net 2004 FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BOARD OF DIRECTORSCarla Harris, Morgan Stanley and Company, Inc., Chair Ralph L. Rogers, Jr., Altria Corporate Services, Inc., Executive Vice ChairJewel Jones, Love Kitchen, Inc., Vice ChairKathy Goldman, SecretaryRobert Weinmann, ACOSTA Sales & Marketing, Treasurer

Reverend Henry Belin Eileen ScottBethel AME Church Pathmark Stores, Inc. Peter L. Bloom Nancy SeligerGeneral Atlantic Partners Fleishman - Hillard, Inc.John F. Fritts, Esq.Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLC

PRESIDENT & CEOLucy Cabrera, Ph.D.

ADVISORS TO THE STUDYDiane Gibson, Ph.D., Baruch CollegeAllison L. C. de Cerreno Ph.D., New York UniversityDarrick Hamilton, Ph.D., New School UniversityIrving S. Hamer, Ph.D., Columbia UniversityFazana Saleem-Ismail, Robin Hood FoundationCalum Turvey, Ph.D., Rutgers University

POLICY AND RESEARCH TEAMLucy Cabrera, Ph.D., President and CEOÁine Duggan, Vice President of Government Relations, Policy & ResearchVeronica Olazabal Hendrickson, Director of Policy and ResearchRenee Razzano, Research CoordinatorAshley Joy Baughman, Hunger Policy and Research InternLoresa Wright, Administrative Assistant

SPECIAL THANKS TOAll the Emergency Food Programs participants who so generously gave of their time to participate in interviews; Staff and volunteers of New York City Emergency Food Programs;Food Policy Institute (FPI) at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey; The Anti-HungerCommunity; The Food Industry; America’s Second Harvest, The Nation’s Food Bank Network;New York City Human Resources Administration: Office of Domestic Violence and EmergencyIntervention/EFAP; New York State Department of Health: Division of Nutrition/HPNAP; NewYork State Office of General Services: Division of Government Donated Foods/TEFAP; Staff ofthe Food Bank For New York City; Donors, Funders, and Friends of the Food Bank For New YorkCity; NYPIRG’s Community Mapping Assistance Program (CMAP)

This report was made possible through the generous supportof the New York Community Trust

Member of America’s Second Harvest, The Nation’s Food Bank Network

FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY Hunger Safety Net 2004 • v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

STUDY HIGHLIGHTS 4

METHODOLOGY 6

PROGRAM PARTICIPANT INTERVIEWS 6

EMERGENCY FOOD PROVIDER SURVEY 6

IDENTIFYING THE POPULATION AT RISK OF HUNGER 6

RESULTS 8

EMERGENCY FOOD PARTICIPANTS 8

EMERGENCY FOOD PROVIDERS 15

AT-RISK POPULATION AND ACCESS TO FOOD ASSISTANCE 20

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS

OF THE AT-RISK POPULATION 22

POPULATIONS AT RISK BY COMMUNITY BOARD DISTRICTS 23

POPULATIONS AT RISK BY CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS 33

POPULATIONS AT RISK BY STATE SENATE DISTRICTS 35

POPULATIONS AT RISK BY STATE ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS 37

POPULATIONS AT RISK BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 39

CONCLUSION 41

EMERGENCY FOOD PARTICIPANTS 41

EMERGENCY FOOD PROVIDERS 44

AT-RISK POPULATIONS 44

RECOMMENDATIONS 45

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 49

SOURCES 51

APPENDIX A. EMERGENCY FOOD PARTICIPANT DATA 52

APPENDIX B. EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM DATA 54

STUDY LIMITATIONS 55

NOTES 56

FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY Hunger Safety Net 2004 • 1

INTRODUCTION

In 2003, the Food Bank For New York City reportAttitudes Towards Hunger in New York City, foundthat 82 percent of residents believed that hunger was

a problem in New York City. The same report showedthat many residents, over 60 percent, did not knowwhere to access emergency food services within theircommunity.

The findings of the 2003 Food Bank study, as well asreports by Emergency Food Programs (EFPs) of increas-ing numbers of people accessing emergency food servic-es, prompted the Food Bank, an organization that pro-vides food and other services to 1,200 emergency andcommunity food programs across the city, to conduct astudy to determine how widespread hunger is in NewYork City.

This 2004 report gives the public a fresh lens throughwhich to view hunger policy. It is a comprehensive lookat the profile of hunger — the face of the participantswho access emergency food services, the programs thatserve them, and the communities who might be at risk ofgoing hungry. The questions addressed in this reportinclude:

• Who is turning to the emergency food system, and what socio-economic factors are connected to their participation? Are emergency food participants also accessing government food assistance programs?

• Who is providing food assistance to New York City residents at risk of going hungry, where are they located, how do they operate, and what challenges dothey face?

• Are some New York City residents at risk of going hungry and not accessing either government food assistance (i.e., Food Stamps, WIC) and/or emergency food services from a soup kitchen or a food pantry, and if so, where are they located?

In addition to answering the aforementioned questions,this report also provides socio-demographic snapshots atthe Borough, Community Board, City Council, StateSenate, State Assembly, and Congressional district levelsas it relates to emergency food services and communitiesmost at risk of going hungry.

This research will solidify and increase the impact of thehunger community’s ongoing work to address hunger. Itis intended to inform and help guide strategic organizingfor the hunger community, community leaders, and gov-ernment and elected officials to collaboratively createpolicies that will ensure all New York City residents go tobed fed each night.

INTRODUCTION

2 • Hunger Safety Net 2004 FOOD BANK FOR NEW YORK CITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Inspired by the findings of the Food Bank For New YorkCity’s 2003 report, Attitudes Towards Hunger in New York

City, which revealed that 64 percent (or close to five mil-lion) of New York City residents say that the number of peo-ple who cannot afford to feed themselves or their familieshad increased over the previous three years, yet as little as athird of residents actually knew where to access a local foodassistance program, the Food Bank set out to produce astudy to look at the face of hunger in New York City. Thisstudy analyzes the population of New York City residents atrisk of going hungry, examines who is answering the needfor emergency food, including where and how emergencyfood services are being provided, and sets out to determineif there are gaps in food assistance.

The study shows that at least two million New York Cityresidents, throughout the five boroughs, are at risk of goinghungry, and Emergency Food Programs (EFPs) provideassistance to approximately half. The population of NewYork City residents who access EFPs is largely comprised ofthe elderly, the disabled, women and children and theworking poor in impoverished minority communities.More than three quarters of this population rent the placeswhere they live (78 percent, including 33 percent in publichousing and 45 percent in private rentals), and are boundtogether by the constraints of poverty and lack of educa-tion. Almost all (98 percent) have an income of less than$25,000 with 85 percent struggling to survive on an annualincome of less than $15,000. Finally, nearly half have notcompleted high school (47 percent).

The findings show that program participants at EFPs havean alarmingly low participation rate in government foodassistance programs. Less than one third receive FoodStamps (31 percent) and only a third (32 percent) of poten-tially eligible women with children participate in theSpecial Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,Infants and Children (WIC) program.

Closer analysis of the at-risk population highlights ways thatspecific government food programs can be strengthened toincrease enrollment, including the need to improve accessto government food benefits for eligible families and indi-viduals, as well as to improve program administration so alleligible individuals are enrolled. The report specificallyaddresses ways in which government benefit programs canbe linked to help EFP participants overcome administrativeobstacles. For example, the data shows that participants

who report receiving Special Supplemental Income (SSI)benefits have a higher participation rate in Food Stampsthan the elderly who receive Social Security. This findingmirrors a national trend, as reported by the USDA.iii

In addition, New York State is strengthening the relation-ship between SSI and Food Stamps by implementing theNew York State Nutrition Improvement Project (NYSNIP),to allow all SSI participants who live alone to get the sameor more Food Stamp benefits than they would if theyapplied through the regular Food Stamp applicationprocess. This raises a question about whether the enroll-ment of the elderly could be increased if the applicationfor Food Stamps could be simplified by linking to otherbenefits they receive, such as Social Security. Also, thereport suggests that the preference for local neighborhoodprograms among at-risk communities, particularlyamong the elderly, should be considered in the develop-ment and promotion of policy initiatives to continueimproving the way food assistance is made available toour at-risk neighbors.

Approximately 1,300 soup kitchens and food pantries pro-vide emergency food services to New York City residents atrisk of going hungry. In recent years, programs haveturned their attention to nutritional issues and increasedtheir provision of fresh meat, fish and produce to programparticipants. On average, EFPs spend almost 60 percent oftheir budgets on food and almost all (90 percent) relyheavily on volunteers to operate — 83 percent of all staff isunpaid volunteers.

The better-funded programs, most of which are located inManhattan, have the resources to operate with more paidemployees and provide more services more frequently andat different times of the day. For example, of the 45 pro-grams that operate seven days per week, 60 percent arelocated in Manhattan. In addition, participant enrollmentin government food programs amongst those at risk whoaccess EFPs is higher in Manhattan. This is also partly aresult of Manhattan’s role as the city center. Manhattan-based EFPs and government food program offices mayserve people at risk from different parts of the city becauseof lack of programs in home neighborhoods, wider range ofservices, longer opening hours, and/or proximity to work.

Over a third of all people (38 percent) at risk of going hun-gry in New York City depend only on EFPs for food servic-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


es. Another 12 percent rely on EFPs in combination withFood Stamps and/or WIC. Individuals who depend onlyon Food Stamps and/or WIC account for 23 percent of thetotal. Almost a third of those at risk are not accessing anyform of food assistance; that is, neither EFPs nor FoodStamps nor WIC.

The at-risk community in Manhattan has higher participa-tion rates in both EFPs, and Food Stamps, and/or WIC thanin other boroughs. Staten Island shows the highest percent-age, more than half, of its at-risk community not accessingany of these food assistance services. Poverty rates in theBronx are shown to be extremely high – one third (32 per-cent) of the total at-risk community in New York City islocated there, and it is home to more than a third (38 per-cent) of at-risk individuals who do not access any foodassistance services. More than a third (34 percent) of the at-risk community in Queens is not accessing food assistanceservices while the borough has the lowest participation rate(11 percent) accessing only Food Stamps and/or WIC, but44 percent of those at risk in Queens visit EFPs. More thana quarter (27 percent) of those at risk in Brooklyn are notaccessing any type of food assistance.

While it is interesting to compare boroughs to determinethe location of the at-risk population, borough compar-isons are less helpful for analysis of program needs anddevelopment. It is more useful to examine the specificneeds of communities by local districts. For example, spa-tially viewing the distribution and concentration of EFPs bycommunity board districts in the context of the populationof residents at risk of hunger but not accessing food assis-tance allows for a thorough analysis of hunger at the locallevel — in some instances indicating a need for the develop-ment of new programs and in others, the expansion of pro-gram capacity amongst existing programs.

Analysis at the local level also allows for consideration ofpossible ways in which some programs can be used asmodels for best practices to address hunger. Some pro-grams are able to look beyond food, and many operate likecommunity centers by providing benefits outreach, job-training, income security counseling and other servicesthat will help families and individuals find a way out ofpoverty permanently. Regardless of program size, budgetsor services provided, almost all programs depend on vol-unteers. Hunger community members should partnerwith elected officials, other community leaders and New

York City residents at risk of going hungry to develop“Borough Hunger Task Forces” that would secure a largerpool of money. This new funding would be distributed ina widespread manner to match the widespread problemof hunger and simultaneously address the gaps in serviceswhile providing extra support to existing programs. Thesetask forces could use the developed and successful pro-grams in their own boroughs to develop strategic plans toend hunger in their communities.

The provision of food, as provided by EFPs, is imperativeto ensure that people do not go hungry today, while thework to help people escape the poverty that causes hungeris the long-term goal. As this study shows, some at-riskindividuals and families who choose to access local EFPsare not participating in government food programs towhich they may be entitled. This is a good indication thatstrengthening community-focused approaches is thevision that is needed to increase enrollment in govern-ment food programs and find permanent answers to theproblem of hunger.

Borough Hunger Task Forces would implement a commu-nity development model that engages the at-risk communi-ty in solution-finding and implementation. They wouldspecifically work to launch public-private partnerships withlocal government and businesses, raise funds for smallerprograms, develop services in currently underserved neigh-borhoods, and organize public awareness initiatives abouteligibility for government food programs. They would con-sider and examine alternatives to help people access food,and work towards developing communities’ abilities to pro-vide affordable and nutritious food to local residents. Thetask forces would also set as a priority the goal of develop-ing community-building and leadership-training strategiesto engage representatives of the at-risk population in long-term solution planning.

The task forces could use their understanding of the directexperiences of individuals and families at risk of going hun-gry to create long-term plans that recognize that hunger is abroader issue than food. Planning permanent solutions toend hunger by each Borough Hunger Task Force shoulddraw on the EFP participant findings in this report, whichindicate that income security, education, affordable hous-ing, healthcare and employment are the keys to ensuringthat individuals have the ability to access nutritious food atall times for themselves and their families.


PEOPLE AT RISK OF HUNGER

At least two million New York City residents across thefive boroughs are at risk of going hungry.iv The city’semergency food programs (EFPs) — approximately 1,300soup kitchens and food pantries — are providing food tohalf of them.

• Of the two million people at risk of going hungry, 38 percent access only EFPs, 12 percent access EFPs as well as Food Stamps and/or WIC, 23 percent access only Food Stamps and/or WIC and 28 percent are not accessing EFPs, Food Stamps, or WIC.

POPULATION AT RISK OF HUNGERv

Further analysis reveals where the nearly one-third ofNew York City residents at risk of going hungry but notaccessing any services reside. For example, StatenIsland, a borough that people do not traditionally associ-ate with hunger or poverty, has the highest percentage ofresidents at risk of going hungry but not accessing serv-ices.

• More than half of the at-risk population on Staten Island is not receiving emergency food services, Food Stamps and/or WIC (52 percent).

• Nearly half of those at risk in the Bronx are not receiving emergency food services, Food Stamps and/or WIC (45 percent).

• A third of the people at risk in Queens is not receiv-ing emergency food services, Food Stamps and/or WIC (34 percent).

• Over a quarter of residents at risk in Brooklyn is not receiving emergency food services, Food Stamps and/or WIC (27 percent).

• Manhattan has the lowest percentage of people at risk not accessing any type of food assistance (zero percent).

EMERGENCY FOOD PROVIDERS

On average, EFPs spend almost 60 percent of their budg-ets on food and almost all (90 percent) rely heavily onvolunteers to operate — unpaid volunteers comprise 83percent of all staff.

• The average budget for EFPs is $49,445 with approx-imately half of all programs reporting a budget of less than $17,500. Manhattan programs have an average annual budget of $137,330 and Queens EFPs have an average annual budget of $17,385. The average budget for EFPs in the Bronx is $36,198, Staten Island is $28,490, and Brooklyn is $20,450.

• The better-funded programs, most of which are located in Manhattan, have the resources to operate with more paid employees and provide more services more frequently and at different times of the day. For example, of the 45 programs that operate seven days a week, 60 percent are located in Manhattan. Most of the programs that operate just one or two days per week are located in the other boroughs.

PEOPLE AT RISK ACCESSING EMERGENCYFOOD PROGRAMS

On the food program participant level, findings showthat hunger is most severely felt by a few vulnerablepopulations including the elderly, the disabled, womenwith children, and the working poor.

• Almost a quarter of program participants are the elderly over the age of 65 (24 percent), the majority of whom are women (68 percent) and almost half of whom are foreign-born (45 percent). The elderly have the lowest participation rate (less than 17 percent) in the Food Stamps Program.

• Employment data shows that 19 percent are employed and 31 percent of participants are unem-ployed.

STUDY HIGHLIGHTSSTUDY HIGHLIGHTS


• Data also reveals that 25 percent of people visiting EFPs are those living with disabilities, a population not identified in previous research, while 26 percent are retired.

• Single women with children account for 22 percent of the total number of people accessing EFPs. Single women with children show a higher employment rate than any other group. Compared to all food pro-gram participants, a higher percentage (42 percent) of single women with children report visiting an EFP for less than six months.

• Children account for 26 percent of the overall num-ber of people in households benefiting from EFPs.

• Food program participants are also largely the work-ing poor in impoverished communities. Almost all (98 percent) program participants have incomes of less than $25,000, with 85 percent having incomes less than $15,000.

• Almost half of food program participants (47 percent) report having less than a high school education.

• More than half of EFP participants are Black/African American (53 percent); 34 percent are Latino/Hispanic; nine percent are White; two percent are Asian; and three percent are Multi-Racial.

• More than three quarters (78 percent) of program participants rent the places where they live.

• Twelve percent report they are homeless.

• Program participants also have alarmingly low enrollment in government food assistance pro-grams — less than a third receive potentially eligible Food Stamps benefits. WIC participation amongst potentially eligible single women with children is 32 percent.


The scope of the project is the emergency food net-work and the participants that they serve through-out the five boroughs of New York City (the Bronx,

Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island). TheFood Bank developed an information base using a com-bination of primary and secondary data allowing foranalysis of: 1) emergency food participants, 2) Emer-gency Food Providers (EFPs), and 3) the population atrisk of hunger. Primary sources include data collectedfrom participant interviews and EFP surveys. Secondarydata sources include other internal Food Bank data aswell as 2000 U.S. Census data.vi Reported figures arederived from usable responses to questions of the partic-ipant interviews and EFP surveys, excluding any miss-ing, don’t know and refusal responses.

Program Participant InterviewsThe sample included 987 participants interviewed face-to-face at 28 randomly selected sites. Of these sites, 13 weresoup kitchens (345 participants, or 35 percent of the totalsample) and 15 were food pantries (642 participants, or 65percent of the total sample). The number and distributionof participants included in the study sample populationwas based on 2000 U.S. Census population figures for thefive boroughs and the ratio of soup kitchens to foodpantries. These figures were adjusted and weighted so thatit reflected the ratio of the number of people served at soupkitchens to food pantries for calendar year 2003.vii

At each program site, the method of selecting the inter-viewed participants was consistent. As participantsentered or exited the program, Food Bank staff announcedtheir presence at the program and their intention to inter-view participants. The interviewers also explained thatparticipant responses were voluntary and anonymous,and that the purpose was to expand knowledge of emer-gency food services in New York City and, ultimately, toimprove services to individuals in need of food.Participants were interviewed as available by one of fiveinterviewers, all staff of the Food Bank. Interviews consist-ed of 19 questions such as household size, income, race,and use of Emergency Food Programs.viii The majority ofinterviews were conducted in English, some in Spanish,and a few in Chinese, via a volunteer program-based trans-lator. Statistics regarding participant households, includ-ing the number of children and elderly living with them,were gathered from interviewed participants. For crosstabanalyses, findings are significant at the .05 level.

Emergency Food Provider SurveyA comprehensive list of programs was assembled inJanuary 2004 that includes 1,291 EFPs identified as regis-tered with the New York State Department of Health.Surveys were distributed to these 1,291 programs via faxand mail throughout New York City from January throughMay 2004. Follow-up calls were made to non-respondingEFPs and surveys were redistributed. Programs wereoffered a small incentive in return for completion of thesurvey. The 62 percent response rate includes surveysfrom 250 soup kitchens (66 percent of all soup kitchens)and 545 food pantries (60 percent of all food pantries).Wherever possible, comparisons are drawn with the FoodBank’s 2000 study; however, due to the restructuring of the2004 survey, direct comparisons are not possible for allsurvey items.

Identifying the Population At Risk of HungerThe Food Bank contracted with the Food Policy Institute(FPI), a research center located at Rutgers, the StateUniversity of New Jersey, to develop a method of identify-ing vulnerable people not accessing food resources. FPIwas charged with developing a replicable economicmodel for estimating the at-risk population, the at-riskpopulation accessing EFPs, Food Stamps or WIC (FS/WIC)and the at-risk population NOT accessing EFPs orFS/WIC. To derive these measurements, the Food Bankshared with FPI the raw data collected during the partici-pant interviews as well as Food Bank data on levels ofemergency food services by EFPs for calendar year 2003.

At-Risk Population

The criterion used to identify the population of people atrisk of going hungry is based on the observation that 87percent of all interviewed participants reported incomesof less than $15,000. This number rises to over 98 percentwhen including participants reporting incomes less than$25,000. Given that the average household size of a fami-ly accessing an EFP is 3.1, for this report, income at orbelow 125 percent of the federal poverty level for a house-hold of three is used as the measurement for defining theat-risk population. For a household of three, 125 percentof the federal poverty level is $19,588.ix While this figuremay result in an underestimate (as household income for

METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY


this population may be higher than reported participantincomex and that 14.8 percent of the participants reportedincomes above $15,000), the Food Bank chose to use thenumber of persons living at or below 125 percent of thefederal poverty level to represent a lower boundary of allpeople at risk.xi

At-Risk Population Accessing EFPs

Of the total at-risk population, the figure for those access-ing EFPs was derived directly from levels of EFP servicescollected by the Food Bank for calendar year 2003. Eachmonth, EFPs report to the Food Bank the number of peo-ple that have accessed these services by children (under18), adults (18 – 64), and the elderly (65 and over). In orderto determine the at-risk population accessing EFPs, it wasnecessary to calculate how many unique (unduplicated)individuals access services at EFPs.

The unduplicated number of people accessing EFPs wasdetermined by analyzing the frequency of program use ofinterviewed participants for EFPs, and then dividing thenumber of people visits (as reported by EFPs) by this fig-ure. Those participants visiting a program every day ormore than once a day were weighted by the average num-ber of days per week that soup kitchens and food pantriesreport providing services. The food pantry figure was thenweighted by the average food pantry participant house-hold size to capture the total population benefiting fromfood pantry services by borough. The final figures for soupkitchens and food pantries were added to derive anapproximate unduplicated figure of all people benefitingfrom emergency food services in calendar year 2003.

The at-risk population accessing EFPs also includes peo-ple at risk accessing Food Stamps and/or WIC as reportedby EFP participants.

At-Risk Population Accessing ONLY FS/WIC

The at-risk population accessing only FS/WIC (and not anEFP) is directly based on 2000 U.S. Census data on programparticipation rates. These figures were adjusted to accountfor participation of multiple programs using conditionalprobability analysis.

At-Risk Population NOT Accessing EFPs or FS/WIC

To calculate the at-risk population not accessing EFPs orFS/WIC, the number of those at risk accessing EFPs orFS/WIC was subtracted from the total at-risk populationusing the model:

A – B = C

Where,

A: Total at-risk population

B: At-risk population accessing EFPs, and/or FS/WIC

C: At-risk population NOT accessing EFPs, FS or WIC – the difference between A and Bxii

Socio-Demographic and Spatial Analysis of the At-Risk

Population

Secondary data sources (U.S. Census Bureau, New YorkCity Department of Planning, New York City HumanResources Administration, and the Citizens’ Committeefor Children of New York) were used to determine the dis-tribution of population, population ‘at risk of hunger’ andpopulation ‘at risk of hunger not accessing EFPs orFS/WIC’ by Community Board, City Council, State Senate,State Assembly, and Congressional Districts.

With the use of ArcView GIS software it was possible toaggregate and disaggregate population information andgovernment food assistance rates to the various districtlevels when necessary. As explained in the previous sec-tion, FPI uses joint-probability analysis to determine theoverlap of Food Stamps and WIC participation amongstthe population at-risk to capture the population at riskaccessing Food Stamps and/or WIC.

EFP participation rates of the at-risk population, EFPmeals served by age category and number of soup kitchenand food pantry statistics are based on primary Food Bankdata which is collected and organized at the various dis-trict levels. For EFPs outside of the Food Bank network, theFood Bank collected the necessary data from the FEED-NYC database (a centralized database administered by theNew York State Department of Health) and consulted withNYPIRGS’s Community Mapping Assistance Program(CMAP) to geographically locate the EFPs.


EMERGENCY FOOD PARTICIPANTS

Presented in this section are the findings concerning par-ticipants at Emergency Food Programs (EFPs) includingrace/ethnicity, income range, and education.

Characteristics of EFP ParticipantsGraph 1.1xiii illustrates that among participants, 52.9 per-cent are Black/African American, 34.1 percent areLatino/Hispanic, and 9.0 percent are White. Asian andMulti-Racial/Other participants are 1.5 percent and 2.5percent of the total respectively. These findings are consis-tent with recent USDA figures that show higher rates offood insecurity among Black/African American (22.0 per-cent) and Latino/Hispanic (21.7 percent) households thanWhite households (7.9 percent).xiv Further, while 2001 dataat the national level show that participants are most likelyWhite the composition of an urban area such as New YorkCity tends to include higher proportions of people of color.

Graph 1.1

EFP Participants’ Racial and Ethnic Composition

As seen in Table 1.5 in the appendix, Black/AfricanAmerican participants are more likely to visit a soupkitchen than Latino/Hispanic participants. Black/AfricanAmerican participants make up 55.8 percent of soupkitchen participants and 51.3 percent of food pantry par-ticipants. Latino/Hispanic participants, however, com-prise up to 29.1 percent of soup kitchen participants and36.8 percent of food pantry participants. White partici-pants make up 10.8 percent of soup kitchen participants

and 8.0 percent of food pantry participants. Asian/Indianparticipants comprise 1.5 percent of soup kitchen partici-pants and 1.6 percent of food pantry participants. Multi-Racial and other participants make up 2.9 percent of soupkitchen participants and 2.4 percent of food pantry partic-ipants.

Fifty-six percent of all participants report having beenborn in the U.S. (see Table 1.6 in the appendix). Sixty-seven percent of participants in Manhattan are foreign-born compared to 45.3 percent in Brooklyn, 41.5 percentin the Bronx, 34.4 percent in Queens and 16.1 percent inStaten Island.

As Graph 1.2 shows, 85.4 percent of participants earn lessthan $15,000 per year with 12.9 percent earning between$15,000 and $25,000. Further analysis, not shown in thegraph, shows that the lowest percentage of participantsearning less than $15,000 is among White participants(73.9 percent) and the highest percentage is amongLatino/Hispanic participants (91.6 percent). On the otherhand, the lowest percentages of participants earningbetween $15,000 and $25,000 is among Latino/Hispanicparticipants (7.5 percent) and the highest is among Whiteparticipants (22.7 percent). Table 1.1 in the appendix liststhe breakdown of all participants’ reported incomes.

Graph 1.2

Distribution of EFP Participants’ Income

RESULTSRESULTS

0

10

20

30

40

50

6052.9%

34.1%

9%

1.5% 2.5%

Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Black/

Africa

n Am

erica

n

Latin

o/Hisp

anic

White

Asian/

Indi

an

Multi-

Racial

/Oth

er

Race / Ethnicity

Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Income Range

0

20

40

60

80

10085.4%

12.9%

0.9% 0.7%

Less than$15,000

$15 – $25,000 $25 – $50,000 $50 – $75,000


In terms of education level, 46.5 percent of participants havenot completed high school while 53.6 percent have at least ahigh school diploma (see Table 1.4 in the appendix for moreinformation). Educational background varies by race/eth-nicity. A disproportionately high number of Latino/Hispanic participants report less than a high school educa-tion (62.3 percent, as compared to 46.7 percent for Asian/Indians, 40.7 percent for Black/African Americans, and26.1 percent for White respondents). Also, 61.4 percent ofWhite respondents reported a high school or equivalentlevel of education, as compared to 44.0 percent for Multi-Racial/Others, 40.9 percent for Black/African Americans,and 25.1 percent for Latino/Hispanic participants.

Nineteen percent of participants are employed while 30.5percent are unemployed. Among employed participants,5.6 percent are 65 and over. Results also show that 25.5percent of participants are retired and 25.1 percent arepeople with disabilities. For additional details, refer toTable 1.7 in the appendix.

As Table 1.3 below indicates, 44.5 percent of participantsrent the places where they live and 32.7 percent live inpublic housing. Twelve percent report that they are home-less with eight percent living in a shelter or temporaryhousing. Soup kitchen participants indicate greater ratesof homelessness (21.1 percent SK to 7.4 percent FP) thanfood pantry participants.

Table 1.3

EFP Participant Housing by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food

Pantry (FP) Use

Housing SK FP Total (SK and FP)Own 4.9% 10.4% 8.5%Rent (Private) 40.9% 46.4% 44.5%Public Housing 29.9% 34.2% 32.7%Homeless 21.1% 7.4% 12.2%Other 2.9% 1.4% 1.9%Total Responding (n) 345 642 987

Findings also show that the average household size of par-ticipants is 3.1 members. As Graph 1.4 shows, in terms ofhousehold size by program type, soup kitchens tend toserve a higher number of single-household individualsthan food pantries (32 percent to 21 percent) while foodpantries tend to serve more multi-person household fam-ilies — 40 percent of participants at pantries are three- andfour person households, contrasted with 25 percent ofsoup kitchens.

Graph 1.4

Distribution of Household Size of EFP Participants

Forty-six percent of emergency food participants (46.3percent) report living with a child under 18 — of this total,31.3 percent are single-headed households, primarily single female-headed (22.3 percent), but also single male-headed (9.0 percent). As seen in Graph 1.5, children com-prise 34.8 percent of all participant households with thehighest percentage of children in Brooklyn (36.3 percent)and the lowest on Staten Island (30.1 percent). Also refer toTable 1.8 in the appendix for further information.

The elderly comprise the largest proportion of householdsin Queens, at 15.4 percent, and the lowest proportion in theBronx, at 4.3 percent. In New York City in general, 12.2 per-cent of participants are 65 years or older.

Graph 1.5

Proportion of the Elderly, Adults, and Children within

Household Totals, by Borough

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 43 5 6 ormore

32.1

%

Perc

en

tage o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

21.1

%

19.8

%

22.7

%

17.8

%

10.9

%

21.6

%

13.6

%

7.6

%

6.1

%

12.1

%

14.5

%

Number of Individuals in Households

% Within food pantry% Within soup kitchen

Bronx

Brookl

yn

Que

ens

Man

hatta

n

Stat

en Is

land

New

York

City

Perc

en

tage o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Borough

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 Elderly

Adults

Children

EFP participants responded to three questions regardingprogram use, including whether they visit more than oneprogram, how long they have been visiting a program, andhow often they visit. Fifty-one percent of participantsreport having sought emergency food assistance frommore than one program. In terms of duration, findingsshow that 36 percent of participants have been visiting aprogram for less than six months while 31 percent reportvisiting a program for over two years. As Graph 1.6 shows,the highest proportion, or 30 percent, of soup kitchen par-ticipants report visiting a program “several times per week.”For food pantry participants, the highest proportion —again, 30 percent — report visiting “once a week” (SeeTables 1.10, 1.11, and 1.12 in appendix).

Graph 1.6

Frequency of Participant Access at EFPs by Soup Kitchen

and Food Pantry

Twenty-three percent of participants use programs locatedoutside of a ten-block radius of their homes. This may bean indication that there are not EFPs located near theirhomes or that EFPs closer in proximity may not be able toprovide services during more accessible times. By programtype, a higher percentage of food pantry participants livewithin ten blocks of a program (81.3 percent) than soupkitchen participants (68.9 percent) (See Table 1.13 in theappendix).

EFP Participants and Government AssistanceProgramsThis study’s findings show that over 60 percent of EFP par-ticipants receive some form of cash and non-cash govern-ment benefits and, still access EFPs as an additional sup-plement to meet their household food needs (See Table 1.9in the appendix).

Because the Food Stamps Program is the first line ofdefense against hunger for millions of families, it is impor-tant to highlight that only 30.5 percent of emergency foodparticipants are enrolled in the Food Stamps Program.The borough with the highest proportion of participantswho report receiving Food Stamps is Staten Island (40.3percent), followed by Manhattan (36.8 percent), the Bronx(35.2 percent), Brooklyn (29.1 percent) and Queens (22.8percent).

Graph 1.7

Food Stamp Participation Amongst EFP Participants

by Borough

Another program aimed at supplementing the fooddemands of households is the Special SupplementalNutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children(WIC). In New York State, individuals who are eligiblefor WIC are women who are pregnant or postpartumwith children up to the age of five and either have anincome at or below 185 percent of the federal povertyline or participate in Food Stamps, Medicaid, orTemporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). For afamily of three, 185 percent of the federal poverty linewould be a yearly income of $27,787. Close to eight per-cent of participants report enrollment in WIC.


More than once a day

Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Frequency of Visit

Food pantry

Soup kitchen

Total

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Once a day

Severaltimes

a week

Once a week

Severaltimes

a month

Once a month

Lessthan

once a month

Bronx

Brookl

yn

Que

ens

Man

hatta

n

Stat

en Is

land

New

York

City

Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Borough

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

35.2

%

64.8

%

29.1

%

70.9

%

36.8

%

63.2

%

22.8

%

77.2

%

40.3

%

59.7

%

30.5

%

69.5

%

Yes, participate

No, does not participate


School meals and child nutrition assistance programs arealso important in helping to ensure that children haveaccess to nutritious foods; however, enrollment in SchoolMeals Programs is less than 100 percent in New York City.The School Meals Program also allows an at-risk house-hold a chance to utilize income that would otherwise beused to supplement their child’s meals as additional assis-tance towards the food demands of the entire household.According to the State Department of Education, approx-imately 63.8 percent of all eligible children in New YorkCity were enrolled in the free lunch program and 71.8 per-cent of eligible children were enrolled in the reduced-lunch program in the 2003 school year.xvi Similarly, 68 per-cent of this study sample participates in the School MealsProgram.

Of participants who report accessing a non-cash govern-ment food assistance program, very few access only oneprogram - 1.1 percent access Food Stamps alone, 0.1 per-cent access WIC alone, and 12.0 percent access SchoolMeals alone. Most participants utilize a combination ofservices to make ends meet including emergency foodassistance – 50 percent of all participants report accessingeither Food Stamps, WIC, or School Meals Programs.

In terms of cash assistance benefits, 11.3 percent receiveTANF benefits, 21.5 percent receive Social Security bene-fits, and 18.2 percent receive Supplemental SecurityIncome (SSI). The highest proportion of participation inTANF is in the Bronx, at 19.1 percent (80.9 percent do notreceive TANF), and the lowest is 8.7 percent in Queens(91.3 percent do not receive TANF).

For Social Security recipients, the findings show that theytend to be long-term users of EFPs, as 38.6 percent reporthaving accessed EFPs for more than two years, comparedto 28.8 percent of those who do not receive Social Securitybenefits. The highest ratio of participants who reportreceiving Social Security is in Queens (29.7 percent) andthe lowest is 8.1 percent on Staten Island.

For SSI recipients, the findings also show that they tend tobe long-term users of EFPs, as 38.4 percent report having

accessed EFPs for more than two years, compared to 29.2percent of those who do not receive SSI benefits. TheBronx has the highest proportion of individuals receivingSSI (25.9 percent); Queens has the lowest proportion (14.9percent).

Gender AnalysisFindings reveal that generally, 56.3 percent of participantswho access EFPs are women (43.7 percent are men — seeTable 1.2 in the appendix). In terms of race and ethnicityand gender, more White participants are men (60.2 per-cent compared to 39.8 percent women). More participantsof color are women — 56.3 percent of Black/AfricanAmerican, 61.8 percent of Latino/Hispanic, and 60 percentof Asian/Indian participants are women.

The ratio of women to men is highest in Queens (62.3 per-cent women) and Manhattan (59.5 percent women). Fifty-six percent of participants in Brooklyn are women (55.8percent), followed by 46.9 percent of participants in theBronx and 46.8 percent on Staten Island.

As indicated in Graph 1.8, women are more likely thanmen to report having accessed a program for six months totwo years (37.3 percent for women, 28.7 percent for men);men are more likely to report having accessed a programfor less than six months (37.6 percent for men, 33.8 percentfor women) or more than two years (33.6 percent for men,28.9 percent for women).

Graph 1.8

Duration of Program Access, by Gender

Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Length of Time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

37.6

%

33.8

%

33.6

%

28.9

%

Less than six months

Six monthsto two years

More thantwo years

Men

Women28.7

%

37.3

%

Analysis of gender and age reveals that female participantstend to be slightly older than male participants; the aver-age age for women is 54 compared to 51 for men. In termsof education level, 46.3 percent of women report havingless than a high school education, compared to 46.6 per-cent of men. The proportions of women and men whoreport having a college degree varies — 4.2 percent ofwomen and 0.9 percent of men report having received aBachelor’s degree.

Sixty-eight percent of all female participants access one ormore government assistance programs — 10.8 percentreport receiving WIC, 11.7 percent TANF/public assis-tance, 27.7 percent Social Security, 17.3 percent SSI, 33.7percent Food Stamps, and 68.9 percent School Meals.Fifty-five percent of male participants access one or moregovernment assistance programs — 3.5 percent reportreceiving WIC, 10.7 percent report receiving TANF/publicassistance, 14.8 percent Social Security, 21.3 percent SSI,26.2 percent Food Stamps, and 65.6 percent School Meals.

Single Female Households with ChildrenOf all female participants, 76.7 percent report being single,separated, divorced or widowed and 23.3 percent reportbeing legally married. Single female households with chil-dren comprise 22.3 percent of all participant householdsand 72.1 percent of all single parent households.

Out of the sub-group of single female-headed households,33.6 percent are located in Queens, 28.2 percent inBrooklyn, 17.3 percent in Manhattan, 15.5 percent in theBronx, and 5.5 percent on Staten Island. 72.3 percent ofsingle female households with children access a foodpantry and 27.7 percent access a soup kitchen.

As Graph 1.9 shows, this sub-group of women tends to bemore highly educated than participants in general, as 11.4percent report some college, 37.9 percent report a highschool diploma or equivalent, and 40.6 percent report lessthan a high school education. In comparison, 8.6 percentof all participants report some college, 37.5 report highschool diploma or equivalent, and 46.5 percent report lessthan a high school education.

Graph 1.9

Education Level of Single Women with Children

Compared to All Participants

As graph 1.10 demonstrates, the employment rateamongst single women households with children (20.9percent) is slightly higher than the average percentage forall participants (18.7 percent).

Graph 1.10

Employment Status of Single Women with Children

Compared to All Participants

Data also shows that the increase in number of singlewomen with children turning to emergency food servicesis a recent trend as 41.5 percent report visiting an EFP forless than six months. This trend could be an indication ofa high level of turnover amongst the group of single


Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Education Level

Less than HS HS or equivalent Some college0

10

20

30

40

50

Single women w/ children

All participants

40.6

%

46.5

%

37.9

%

37.5

%

11.4

%

8.6

%

Perc

en

tage

of

Gro

up

Employment Status

Employed Unemployed Retired Disabled0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

18.7

%

20.9

%

30.5

%

36.4

%

25.5

%

23.6

%

25.1

%

19.5

%

Single women w/ children

All participants


women with children; that is, this sub-group may rely onEFPs for food during specific periods of need rather thanas a long-term supplement.

Seventy-three percent of all single women with childrenreport accessing both cash and non-cash governmentbenefits. Specifically, 20.0 percent access WIC, 25.7 percentreceive TANF/public assistance, 14.3 percent receiveSocial Security benefits, 49.5 percent participate in theFood Stamps Program, 21.0 percent receive SSI, and 76.7percent participate in the School Meals Program.

Sixty-two percent of EFP participants are enrolled in someform of government assistance program (62.2 percent, seeTable 1.9 in the appendix). This high rate, while concen-trated on household assistance such as the Food Stampsand School Meals Programs, may be an indication thateven with assistance, it remains difficult to meet thedemands of their households.

Elderly ParticipantsIt is clear that the need for emergency food is high amongthe elderly. Individuals over the age of 65 comprise 24.1percent of all participants (see Table 1.3 in the appendix formore information). Of participants 65 and over, 66.7 per-cent are between the ages of 65 and 74, 28.2 percent arebetween 75 and 84, and 5.1 percent are between 85 and 94.

As presented in Graph 1.11, participants ages 85 to 94 aremore likely to visit food pantries than soup kitchens. Ofparticipants over 65, 2.1 percent of soup kitchen visitorsare ages 85 to 94 while among food pantry participants, 5.9percent are between the ages of 85 and 94.

Graph 1.11

EFP Usage by Participants over the Age of 65, by Program

Type

Data also show that most elderly participants have beenusing the EFP network for two years or more — 37.7 percentof all the elderly report visiting an EFP for more than twoyears; 16.9 percent report one to two years; 20.3 percentreport six months to one year; and 25.1 percent report lessthan six months.

Overall, 88.5 percent of all elderly participants receivecash or non-cash federal assistance, primarily in SocialSecurity benefits (74.8 percent). However, 84 percent ofthis group report incomes below $15,000, which is com-parable to the sample, and yet Food Stamp participationis low relative to other age ranges — 16.7 percent of theelderly report receiving Food Stamp benefits while therate for all participants regardless of age is 30.5 percent.

0 20 40 60 80

Age 85 – 94

Age 75 – 84

Age 65 – 74

5.9%

2.1%

27.4%

31.3%

66.7%

66.7%

Percentage of Group 65 and Older

Food pantry

Soup kitchen

Age G

rou

p

Graph 1.12

Food Stamp Participation amongst EFP Participants 65

and over, Compared to All Participants

Sixty-eight percent of all the elderly are women. Also, of allthe elderly, 45 percent are foreign born.

Thirty-two percent of the elderly live alone. Further analy-sis reveals that there is a population of single older women65 and over, living alone and caring for children (nine per-cent). Findings also show that there may be single female-headed households with children caring for the elderly, as27 percent of the elderly live in households with childrenwith more than one female adult. However, more researchis needed to draw definitive conclusions for these sub-groups.

People Living with DisabilitiesThe findings show that people living with disabilities are aparticularly vulnerable subset of the population.

A total of 250 individuals (25 percent) responded that theyare disabled. Staten Island shows a particularly high pro-portion of people living with disabilities (60.0 percent) ascompared to participants that are retired (14.0 percent)and unemployed (26.0 percent).

About half (51 percent) of those reporting that they livewith a disability are women.

As shown in Graph 1.13, a higher proportion of partici-pants with disabilities report living in public housing andbeing homeless or in shelters/temporary housing. A lowerproportion of participants with disabilities reports owningor renting a private apartment.

Graph 1.13

Housing Status of EFP Participants Living with

Disabilities

Findings show less than full participation in governmentassistance programs for people living with disabilities. Forexample, 52.8 percent of people reporting that they aredisabled receive SSI benefits and 44 percent receive FoodStamps.

SummaryThe findings presented above on EFP participants providea comprehensive profile of the population of people inNew York City who visit soup kitchens and food pantries.It is particularly important to emphasize the vulnerabili-ties of people living with disabilities, the elderly, and singlewomen with children. For the purpose of understandingthe need for emergency food and ways to improve accessto food for low-income New York City residents, it is clearthat certain demographic characteristics, such as house-hold size, race/ethnicity, age, and income, are critical ele-ments of the story. Further tables with findings on age,education level, employment, and geographical proximityto EFPs are included in the appendix.


Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Age Group

All Ages 65-950

5

10

15

20

25

30

3530.5%

16.7%

Perc

en

tage o

f P

art

icip

an

ts

Housing Status

Own Rent, Private Rent, Public Homeless

People living w/ disabilities

All participants

0

10

20

30

40

50

3.6

%

8.5

%

38%

44.5

%

42.4

%

32.7

%

14.8

%

12.2

%


EMERGENCY FOOD PROVIDERS

The following is information regarding Emergency FoodPrograms’ (EFPs) operating budgets, staff, hours of opera-tion, and specialized services. In order to gauge trends infood distribution and overall EFP network development,data between food pantries and soup kitchens are com-pared. In some cases, results are compared to the FoodBank’s 2000 report Who Feeds the Hungry: Mapping New

York City’s Emergency Food Providers.xvii

As illustrated in Graph 2.1, of the 1,291 EFPs in New YorkCity registered with the State Department of Health duringthe time the data was collected, 917 (71 percent) are foodpantries and 374 (29 percent) are soup kitchens.

Chart 2.1

Ratio of Soup Kitchens to Food Pantries

Internal Food Bank data shows that, of the 851 agenciesspecifically in the Food Bank network, 79 percent are faith-based (FP=78 percent, SK=80 percent).

Program Start-UpData show that soup kitchens have an average age of 15years and food pantries have an average age of 13 years.While approximately 38 percent of EFPs began operatingwithin the last eight years as shown in Graph 2.2, most(29.5 percent) began operations between 1996 and 2000and just 8.8 percent began operating in the past four years.The longest reported operating EFP is the New York CityRescue Mission in Manhattan which has been providingfood assistance for 131 years.

Graph 2.2

Years of EFP Start-Up

Annual Budgets and Program ExpensesThe average annual budget size for EFPs is $49,445 with 50percent of EFPs reporting an annual budget of at or below$17,500. Chart 2.3 shows a breakdown of average EFPexpenses. Typically, EFPs show that food comprises 59percent of budgeted expenses. This proportion for foodexpense is similar to that in the 2000 Food Bank study,where EFPs reported an average of 54 percent for foodexpense. Current findings show that 15 percent of spend-ing goes toward paid staff, 10 percent toward rent and util-ities, 12 percent toward equipment and supplies, and fourpercent toward “other”.xviii In 2000, EFPs reported an aver-age of 32 percent allocated toward paid staff, which con-trasts with the current figure of 15 percent.

Total Number of Programs = 1,291

71%

29%

Food pantries

Soup kitchens

Perc

en

tage o

f P

rogra

ms

Year of Start-Up

Before 1980 1981–1985 1986–1990 1991–19950

5

10

15

20

25

30

1996–2000 2001–2004

8.9%

15.5%

18.5% 18.9%

8.8%

29.5%

Chart 2.3

Annual Program Expenses of EFPs

As demonstrated in Graph 2.4, the breakdown by boroughreveals a dramatic variation in the amount of reportedaverage budget size. EFPs in Manhattan report the highestaverage at $137,330 and those in Queens report the lowestat $17,385. The average budget for EFPs in the Bronx is$36,198, Staten Island is $28,490, and Brooklyn is $20,450.

Graph 2.4

EFP Budget Breakdown by Borough in Dollars

Staffing(Paid Employees and Unpaid Volunteers)

Total Staff

On average, the number of EFP total staff is 19, withapproximately three paid employees and 16 unpaid vol-unteers. As represented in Chart 2.5, 17 percent of all staffare paid employees, while 83 percent are unpaid volun-teers. Further analysis indicates that the median staff forall EFPs is 10, which means that exactly half of all EFPsreport a total staff of 10 or less.

Chart 2.5

Distribution of Paid Employees and Unpaid Volunteers

at EFPs

Paid Employees

Approximately 46 percent of all EFPs report having paidemployees (50 percent for SK and 45 percent for FP). Paidemployees contribute 43 percent of all staff hours worked.The average paid employee contributes 52 hours permonth (compared to 66 hours of volunteer time). Split byprogram type, the average paid soup kitchen employeecontributes 70 hours per month, compared to 45 for paidfood pantry employees. Twenty-seven percent of pro-grams report that they have a paid director (29 percent forSKs, 27 percent for FPs).

Unpaid Volunteers

Ninety percent of EFPs use unpaid volunteers. Fifty-fourpercent report operating strictly with unpaid volunteers(50 percent of SKs and 55 percent of FPs). Unpaid volun-teer staff hours account for 57 percent of all staff hoursworked. On average, unpaid volunteers contribute 66hours per month of work compared to 52 hours worked by


Average Annual Budgets = $49,445

59%15%

12%

10%

4%

Food

Paid staff

Equipment

and supplies

Rent and

utilities

Other

(unspecified)

Bu

dget

Siz

e

Borough

Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island

0

$30,000

$60,000

$90,000

$120,000

$150,000

$36,198

$20,450 $17,385

$28,490

$137,330

83%

17%

Unpaid volunteer

Paid employee


paid employees — 64 hours for soup kitchens and 67 hoursfor food pantries.

Staff by Borough

The average for total staff varies by borough. The average is37 for Manhattan, 19 for Staten Island, 14 for Queens, and10 for Brooklyn and the Bronx. The average for paidemployees also varies by borough: the average is eight forManhattan, two for the Bronx, Staten Island, and Queens,and one for Brooklyn. Finally, the findings on unpaid vol-unteers show the average for Manhattan to be 30 while theaverage is 18 for Staten Island, 12 for Queens, nine forBrooklyn and eight for the Bronx.

Staff Languages

Seventy-five percent of EFPs report that they have staff orvolunteers who speak one or more languages other thanEnglish. Graph 2.6 shows some of the range of languagediversity of EFPs, with 67 percent of programs reportingSpanish-speaking staff and 22 percent reporting French-speaking staff.

Graph 2.6

Languages Spoken by Staff of EFPs

Program AwarenessA majority of programs, 95 percent, report word of mouthas the most common way in which people become awareof their programs, which is an increase of 24 percent fromthe Food Bank’s 2000 study (71 percent in 2000).

Food Distribution of Food PantriesTable 2.7 compares the proportions of responding foodpantries that report serving or providing a particular foodgroup in the 2000 and 2004 studies. Food pantries reportproviding more fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables (from30 percent in 2000 to 81 percent in 2004), fresh or frozenmeat (from 25 percent in 2000 to 70 percent in 2004), freshor frozen fish (from 25 percent in 2000 to 46 percent in2004), and fresh dairy (from 10 percent in 2000 to 57 per-cent in 2004).

Table 2.7

Items Distributed by NYC Food Pantries, 2000-2004

Food Item 2000 2004 % Change (00-04)Fresh/frozen fruits /vegs. 30% 81% +51

Fresh/frozen meats 25 % 70% +45

Fresh/frozen fish 25% 46% +21

Canned fruits/vegs 90% 95% +13

Canned meats 85% 78% -7

Canned fish 85% 78% -7

Grains* 40/83/90% 94%(comb.)

(incl. bread/cereal/rice)

Fresh dairy products 10% 57% +47

Dry dairy products 80% 80% +/-0

Snacks and desserts 80% 80% +/-0

Other** 4% 38% +34

* Percentages from the 2000 studies are approximations based on the

bar graph.

** “Other” products were not specified in the survey for the current

study but likely include non-food items such as diapers, paper

products, hygiene items, etc.

Other(unspecified)

Percentage of Responses

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Albanian

Korean

Arabic

Chinese

Russian

French

Spanish

Sta

ff L

an

gu

age

13%

1%

2%

2%

4%

6%

22%

67%

Special Food ServicesFindings show that fewer EFPs provide certain special foodservices, such as Halal foods, which has decreased overallto 1.2 percent for kitchens and 1.4 percent for foodpantries in 2004, compared to eight percent for soupkitchens and six percent for food pantries in 2000.Fourteen percent of soup kitchens and 11 percent of foodpantries report offering services for people with HIVand/or AIDS which is a decrease from 24 percent forkitchens and 23 percent for pantries in 2000. For morefindings on specialized food services, please see Table 2.1in the appendix.

Food Service Availability of Soup Kitchens andFood Pantries

Number of Days per Week

The findings show that the majority of programs providefood service one day (34.2 percent) or two days (23.6 per-cent) per week and those programs are primarily inBrooklyn (38.8 percent) or the Bronx (22.1 percent). Of allEFPs, 12.2 percent provide food five days a week, 4.0 per-cent six days a week, and 5.6 percent seven days of theweek. Notably, among all five boroughs, out of the 45 EFPsopen seven days a week, 60 percent are located inManhattan.

Graph 2.8 shows the number of days per week that EFPsprovide food service by program type. As shown in thegraph, soup kitchens are more likely than food pantries tobe open five, six and seven days a week. On the otherhand, food pantries are more likely than soup kitchens tobe open one, two or three times a week.

Graph 2.8

Number of Days per Week EFPs Provide Food Service

by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP)

Days of the Week

Categorized by program type, on average, soup kitchensprovide prepared food 3.1 days per week and foodpantries provide packaged food 2.5 days per week. Fromthe data shown in Table 2.9, both food pantries and soupkitchens are most frequently open on Wednesdays (61.1percent SK, 50.1 percent FP) with Tuesday (52.9 percentSK, 46.9 percent FP) and Thursday (55.3 percent SK, 44.2percent FP) following close behind. Thirty percent of allprograms are open on Saturdays and 15.4 percent of allprograms are open on Sundays.

Table 2.9

EFP Food Service Availability by Day of the Week for

Soup Kitchens (SK) and Food Pantries (FP)

Day of the Week FP SK Total (SK and FP)Monday 33.3% 41.5% 35.8%

Tuesday 46.9% 52.9% 48.7%

Wednesday 50.1% 61.1% 53.4%

Thursday 44.2% 55.3% 47.6%

Friday 38.2% 44.3% 40.0%

Saturday 28.4% 33.2% 29.9%

Sunday 12.4% 22.1% 15.4%

Total Programs 244 563 807

Responding (n)


Perc

en

tage o

f P

rogra

ms

Number of Days Open Per Week

Less thanonce aweek

1 2 3 4 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6 7

Food pantry

Soup kitchen


Hours

As indicated in Table 2.10, close to 73 percent of foodpantries are open to provide packages of food between thehours of 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., while 27 percent are openbetween 6 a.m. and 11 a.m., and 13.7 percent are openbetween 4 p.m. and 8 p.m.

Table 2.10

Hours of Food Service by Food Pantries (FPs)xix

Food Item FP

6-11a.m. 27.0%

11am-4p.m. 72.6%

4-8p.m. 13.7%

Total Programs Responding (n) 563

As indicated in Table 2.11, the majority of soup kitchens,76.6 percent, serve lunch while thirty percent serve dinner,20.5 percent serve breakfast, and 19.6 percent servesnacks/other.

Of all 235 soup kitchens, 29.4 percent report serving morethan one type of meal. Of those 69 soup kitchens servingmore than one type of meal, 21 are in Brooklyn, 16 inQueens, 14 in Manhattan, 11 in the Bronx, and five onStaten Island.

A total of 101 soup kitchens (43.0 percent) serve eitherbreakfast or dinner. Of those programs, 35 are in Brooklyn,22 in Queens, 20 in Manhattan, 17 in the Bronx, and five onStaten Island.

Table 2.11

Meal Availability at Soup Kitchens (SK)

Food Item SKs

Breakfast 20.5%

Lunch 76.6%

Dinner 30.3%

Snack 19.6%

Total Programs Responding (n) 244

Variation in EFP Availability by Borough

The findings show that EFPs are open for service moreoften during weekdays and during mid-day. A smaller pro-portion of food pantries and soup kitchens provide mealsand food packages on weekends and evenings. Weekendand evening hours are particularly important to monitorfor those participants who are working regular hours atMonday through Friday jobs.

The five boroughs vary in terms of program service avail-ability. Manhattan has a higher percentage of EFPs openon Saturdays (37.6 percent) compared to EFPs in otherboroughs (Bronx 29.4 percent, Brooklyn 26.6 percent,Queens 25.0 percent, and Staten Island 21.7 percent).Manhattan and Staten Island have a higher percentage ofEFPs open on Sundays (23.7 percent and 26.1 percent,respectively, compared to 18.4 percent for Queens, 12.4percent for the Bronx, and 9.5 percent for Brooklyn).

Staten Island and Manhattan soup kitchens have a higherpercentage of programs that serve dinner (60.0 percentand 43.9 percent, respectively) than other boroughs (37.2percent in the Bronx, 23.1 percent in Brooklyn, and 13.5percent in Queens). In terms of availability for foodpantries with evening hours for package pick-up, 19.6 per-cent of food pantries in Manhattan are open, while thepercentage for Staten Island food pantries is 16.7 percent,for Queens is 13.9 percent, for Brooklyn is 11.9 percent,and for the Bronx is 11.8 percent.

SummaryIn combination with the results from the participant inter-views, the EFP data further elucidates the situation ofemergency food access in New York City. Given the num-ber of participants who report working, it is clear that morepeople could access emergency food if more providerswere available in the evenings and on weekends.

The increase in programs that provide highly nutritiousfoods such as fresh fruits and vegetables is heartening andshould be continued by promoting policy initiatives toimprove transportation and other infrastructure and char-itable-giving supports that would further increase nutri-tious food distribution. Finally, the findings on budgetsand expenses show that a large disparity exists betweenaverage program budgets in Manhattan and all other bor-oughs, which is particularly provocative in light of findingsfrom the next section, which includes poverty and foodprogram participation figures by borough.

AT-RISK POPULATION AND ACCESS TO FOOD ASSISTANCE

The following section provides the results of the analysisconducted to determine the population at risk of goinghungry (at-risk population), the at-risk population access-ing emergency food programs (EFPs), Food Stamps or WIC(FS/WIC), and the at-risk population NOT accessing EFPsor FS/WIC. Wherever possible, the results are shown byborough.

At-Risk PopulationIn New York City, 2.06 million (2,062,534) people live at orbelow 125 percent of the federal poverty level and are atrisk of going hungry.xx At this poverty level, a household ofthree earns $19,588.

Based on the information collected by the Food Bank,there is evidence that the 150 percent of the poverty levelmore accurately reflects those at risk of going hungry, asover 98 percent of participants report earning less than$25,000, however further research needs to be collected toconfirm this relationship. At 150 percent of the federalpoverty level, the number of people at risk of going hungrywould rise to 2.44 million (2,441,487). At this level of pover-ty, a household of three earns $23,505.xxii

For the purposes of this report, the Food Bank has chosen todefine the at-risk population at or below the more conserva-tive 125 percent of the federal poverty level, a standardmeasurement of poverty amongst the hunger community.

Distribution of the At-Risk PopulationTwenty-six percent of New York City residents are at risk ofgoing hungry. As Graph 3.1 shows, Brooklyn has thelargest at-risk population (36.5 percent) and Staten Islandthe smallest (2.7 percent).

Graph 3.1

Distribution of the At-Risk Population by Borough

At-Risk Population and Access to EFPs andFS/WICTwenty-six percent of New York City residents are at risk ofgoing hungry (26.3 percent) or 2.06 million people. Asshown in Chart 3.2, 38.1 percent (786,244 individuals) ofthe at-risk population access ONLY EFPs while 12.0 per-cent (246,522 individuals) access EFPs and FS/WIC. Whilenot shown in the graph, these two figures total 50.1 per-cent (1,032,766 individuals), this means that 50.1 percentof people at risk of going hungry in New York City accessEFPs. The graph also shows that 23.0 percent of the at-riskpopulation access ONLY FS/WIC and NOT EFPs (474,782individuals). The Food Bank estimates that 28.4 percentare at risk of going hungry and do NOT access EFPs orFS/WIC (554,986 individuals).

Chart 3.2

At-Risk Population and Access to EFPs and FS/WIC


Perc

en

tage o

f T

ota

l A

t-R

isk

Po

pu

lati

on

Borough

Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

22.9%

17.5%

36.5%

20.3%

2.7%

At-Risk Population = 2,062,534 people (100%)

38.1%

23%

28.4%

12%Percent at risk

accessing EFPs and FS/WIC

Percent at risk

accessing ONLY EFPs

Percent at risk

accessing ONLY FS/WIC

Percent at risk NOT

accessing EFPs OR FS/WIC


Distribution of the At-Risk Population NOTAccessing EFPs or FS/WIC Across New York City, 554,986 people are at risk of goinghungry and do not access either EFPs or FS/WIC. Of thisgroup, the highest number, 212,470 individuals, live in theBronx (38.3 percent). As shown in Graph 3.3, all of the at-risk population in Manhattan accesses EFPs or FS/WIC. Asthe data further reveals, Food Stamps, WIC and EFPs pro-vide assistance to 30,901 additional people at risk inManhattan, reflected in its negative 5.6 percentage.

Graph 3.3

Distribution of People At Risk NOT Accessing EFPs or

FS/WIC by Borough

At-Risk Population by Borough and Access toEFPs and FS/WIC Findings show that access to EFPs or FS/WIC varies signif-icantly with each borough.

As Graph 3.4 shows, a high percent (51.7) of those at risk onStaten Island do not access either EFPs or FS/WIC.Similarly, those people at risk in the Bronx also show a highpercent not accessing EFPs or FS/WIC (44.9 percent).

In Manhattan, all of those at risk — as defined for thisstudy — are accessing either EFPs or FS/WIC. A high per-cent (56.3) of those at risk in Manhattan also access onlyEFPs, EFPs and FS/WIC (16.9 percent) and only FS/WIC(35.3 percent) compared to the at-risk community of otherboroughs.

While not as high as in Manhattan, a high percent of thoseat risk in Queens and Brooklyn access only EFPs (44.0 per-cent and 37.7 percent respectively).

Graph 3.4

At-Risk Population by Borough and Access to EFPs and

FS/WIC

SummaryBased on this study’s measurement, it is found that2,062,534 individuals are at risk of going hungry in NewYork City. Of that number, 12.0 percent access EFPs andFood Stamps and/or WIC benefits; 38.1 percent accessEFPs only; 23.0 percent access Food Stamps and/or WIConly; and 28.4 percent access neither EFPs nor FoodStamps and/or WIC. The breakdown of access to EFPs andgovernment food assistance programs varies widely byborough. This analysis is critical as a tool to identify waysto help ensure that individuals have the knowledge andability to access resources for food security across allhouseholds in New York City.

Perc

en

tage o

f P

op

ula

tio

n A

t R

isk

Borough

Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 38.3%36.7%

-5.6%

25.3%

5.3%

Staten Island

Percentage of At-Risk Population

Queens

Manhattan

Brooklyn

Bronx

Bo

rou

gh

0 20 40 60 80 100-20

Percent at risk NOT accessing EFPs OR FS/WIC

Percent at risk accessing ONLY EFPs

Percent at risk accessing ONLY FS/WIC

Percent at risk accessing EFPs OR FS/WIC

51.7% 20.8% 25.0% 2.6%

33.6% 11.4% 44.0% 11.0%

-8.5% 35.3% 56.3% 16.9%

27.1% 20.0% 37.7% 15.2%

44.9% 29.0% 21.2% 4.9%


SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND SPATIALANALYSIS OF THE AT-RISK POPULATION

The following maps provide a socio-demographic analysisby Community Board, City Council, State Assembly, StateSenate, and Congressional District. Each map is accom-panied by a table reporting:

• Total population of the district• Population at risk of hunger• Population at risk of hunger not accessing food

assistance• Number of soup kitchens and food pantries in the

district • Number of meals served within the district by age

The maps are color-coded according to the percentage ofpeople at risk of hunger who are not accessing food assis-tance in each district. The lighter shades represent dis-tricts with the lowest percentage of people at risk ofhunger who are not accessing food assistance, and thedarker shades represent districts with the highest percent-age of people at risk of hunger who are not accessing foodassistance. Emergency Food Program locations are dis-played as indicated by the map legends.

Spatially viewing the distribution and concentration ofEFPs in the context of the population of New York City res-idents at risk of hunger but not accessing food assistanceallows for a thorough analysis of hunger at the local level.Together, with the findings from the participant andprovider sections this information lays the groundwork fordevising and implementing different ways to ensure thatpeople across the five boroughs have access to the foodthey need.

Some dark shaded districts, for example, Staten Island andNorth East Queens, with high percentages of people at riskof hunger not accessing food assistance have few if anyEFPs. This is an indication that districts with few or nofood programs need new resources to develop new pro-grams to serve the local communities.

The maps show other dark shaded districts with high per-centages of people at risk of hunger not accessing foodassistance with heavy concentrations of EFPs, for example,in the South Bronx. This is an indication that programcapacity is a challenge in such districts. The provider sec-tion further supports that programs in these districts lackthe necessary resources to meet the needs of their localcommunities — for example, the services and hours/daysof operation for programs in these districts are limited.

Many of the white shaded districts, for example, in parts ofBrooklyn and Manhattan, with low percentages of peopleat risk of hunger not accessing food assistance have heavyconcentrations of EFPs. The corresponding tables in thissection reflect the numbers of people at risk of hunger notaccessing food assistance in the negative for some of thesedistricts. In general, this indicates that there are moreresources (more programs with the necessary capacity)available in these districts, than in some of the dark shad-ed districts, to meet the emergency needs of people at riskof going hungry. Given their central location, it is also apossibility that some of the EFPs in these districts are beingaccessed by people from outside the district. In addition,the maps and tables indicate that in the white shaded dis-tricts the emergency food needs of families and individu-als living at or below 125 percent of the federal povertylevel are being met. As indicated in the previous section,EFPs are also serving people above 125 percent of the fed-eral poverty level, and this may be another explanation forthe negative numbers in the tables.


PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

OA

RD

DIS

TR

ICT

S

12

10

9

11

8 12

4

7

3

6

510

00.5

11

.52

0.2

5M

iles

Co

mm

un

ity B

oard

Dis

tric

ts

1.

Mott

Have

n/M

elro

se

2.

Hu

nts

Poin

t/Lo

ng

woo

d3.

Morr

isan

ia/C

roto

na

4.

Hig

hb

rid

ge/C

onco

urs

e5.

Fo

rdh

am

/Un

ive

rsity H

eig

hts

6.

Belm

on

t/E

ast

Tre

mo

nt

7.

Kin

gsb

ridg

e H

ts./

Be

dfo

rd P

k.

8.

Riv

erd

ale

/Fie

ldsto

ne

9.

Park

ch

este

r/S

ou

nd

vie

w10

. T

hro

gs N

eck/C

Op

City

11. M

orr

is P

ark

/Bro

nxd

ale

12

. W

illia

msbrid

ge/B

aych

este

r

Le

ge

nd

Em

erg

en

cy F

oo

d P

rog

ram

s

Food P

antr

y (

129 p

rogra

ms)

Soup K

itchen (

26 p

rogra

ms)

Join

t S

oup K

itchen (

37 p

rogra

ms)

and F

ood P

antr

y

% o

f A

Ris

k P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Acce

ssin

g E

FP

s, F

oo

d S

tam

ps

,o

r W

IC

0%

1%

25%

26%

50%

51%

75%

76%

100%

BR

ON

X:E

ME

RG

EN

CY

FO

OD

PR

OG

RA

M S

ITE

S A

ND

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

K


CommunityBoard

DistrictTotal

Population

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger

PopulationAt Risk of

Hunger NOTAccessing EFPs,

FS/WICNo. of Soup

Kitchen Sites No. of FoodPantry Sites

Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Served byEFPs

Children (18 and under)

Meals Served byEFPs

Total MealsServed by EFPs

1 80,949 43,675 -6,480 22 32 770,260 2,615,325 1,501,080 4,886,665

2 45,584 24,486 11,065 6 11 144,177 510,502 309,293 963,972

3 66,628 35,346 14,622 4 18 261,712 739,810 595,717 1,597,238

4 135,818 63,909 36,625 3 18 184,517 535,685 540,832 1,261,035

5 126,370 61,879 27,478 5 17 246,281 1,088,762 958,197 2,293,240

6 71,629 37,134 9,313 4 21 345,708 1,179,601 1,094,449 2,619,758

7 136,647 54,019 29,279 4 12 78,422 605,030 443,049 1,126,501

8 95,513 20,864 15,733 0 1 3,216 27,654 50,592 81,462

9 164,630 57,771 31,976 5 14 209,524 693,374 439,619 1,342,517

10 113,084 16,440 10,812 2 3 20,457 74,082 49,551 144,090

11 105,256 22,374 12,131 8 12 112,628 288,507 97,964 499,099

12 146,127 35,052 19,916 7 17 199,541 368,934 352,597 921,071

Boro. Total 1,288,234 472,949 212,470 70 176 2,576,443 8,727,266 6,432,939 17,736,648

NYC Total 7,854,530 2,062,534 554,986 347 784 12,062,555 42,108,379 32,636,595 88,807,529

BRONX: Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by Community Board Districts


18

5

1

15

10

7 11

12

17

13

6

14

23

4

16

8

9

356

01

23

40.5

Mile

s

Co

mm

un

ity B

oa

rd D

istr

icts

1. G

reen

po

int/

William

sb

urg

2. F

ort

Gre

en

e/B

roo

kly

n H

eig

hts

3.

Bed

ford

Stu

yvesan

t4. B

ush

wic

k5. E

ast

New

Yo

rk/S

tarr

ett

Cit

y6. P

ark

Slo

pe/C

aro

l G

ard

en

s7. S

un

set

Park

8. C

row

n H

eig

hts

9. S

ou

th C

row

n H

igh

ts/P

rosp

ect

10. B

ay R

idg

e/D

yker

11. B

en

so

nh

urs

t12. B

oro

ug

h P

ark

13.

Co

ney Isla

nd

14. F

latb

ush

/Mid

wo

od

15. S

heep

sh

ead

Bay

16. B

row

nsvil

le17. E

ast

Fla

tbu

sh

18. F

latl

an

ds/C

an

ars

ie

Leg

en

d

Em

erg

en

cy F

oo

d P

rog

ram

s

Join

t S

oup K

itch

en (

77 p

rogra

ms)

and F

ood P

antr

y

Food P

antr

y (

169 p

rogra

ms)

Soup K

itchen (

29 p

rogra

ms)

% o

f A

Ris

k P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Accessin

g E

FP

s, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

1%

25%

26%

5

0%

76%

1

00%

51%

7

5%

BR

OO

KL

YN

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

OA

RD

DIS

TR

ICT

S


BROOKLYN: Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by Community Board Districts

CommunityBoard

DistrictTotal

Population

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Servedby EFPs

Children (18 and under)Meals Served

by EFPs Total Meals

Served by EFPs

1 159,683 66,952 46,123 2 8 210,112 271,697 219,968 701,777

2 94,412 26,033 3,666 5 16 187,175 898,263 309,555 1,394,993

3 140,370 57,611 -57,110 22 40 725,090 2,355,037 4,129,077 7,209,204

4 102,420 47,400 3,857 12 21 370,543 1,192,671 952,628 2,515,842

5 170,763 67,359 23,831 10 23 573,021 836,917 756,181 2,175,119

6 102,803 19,278 4,688 4 9 54,647 341,471 199,368 595,486

7 118,192 37,746 15,091 2 9 81,586 779,945 543,025 1,404,556

8 94,344 31,905 -2,216 11 20 341,101 942,195 820,620 2,103,916

9 103,151 30,795 206 6 15 342,534 787,061 902,453 2,032,048

10 121,936 22,541 16,544 1 4 15,330 61,909 81,763 159,002

11 170,549 44,081 21,748 0 6 140,153 345,616 774,019 1,259,788

12 184,344 66,307 46,904 1 2 178,013 237,268 363,710 778,992

13 104,379 38,108 19,039 3 10 185,913 173,959 252,446 612,317

14 167,489 48,648 19,264 3 14 341,063 659,034 694,732 1,694,828

15 159,286 36,528 26,706 1 3 17,785 62,621 37,789 118,196

16 84,323 40,824 -4,643 13 22 364,321 1,156,741 1,000,770 2,521,832

17 163,794 40,711 2,828 7 21 395,518 1,087,676 1,084,572 2,567,766

18 192,704 30,123 17,152 0 6 398,948 168,170 143,526 710,643

Boro. Total 2,434,939 752,950 203,697 103 249 4,922,852 12,358,253 13,275,201 30,556,306

NYC Total 7,854,530 2,062,534 554,986 347 784 14,062,555 42,108,379 32,636,595 88,807,529


12

7

4

8

3

5

910

62

11

1

00.7

51.5

2.2

53

0.3

75

Mile

s

Em

erg

en

cy F

oo

d P

rog

ram

s

Jo

int S

oup

Kitch

en

(5

2 p

rogra

ms)

an

d F

oo

d P

antr

y

Fo

od

Pa

ntr

y (

12

4 p

rog

ram

s)

So

up

Kitch

en

(6

6 p

rog

ram

s)

% o

fR

isk P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Ac

cess

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

25%

50%

100%

75%

Co

mm

un

ity B

oa

rd D

istr

icts

1. F

inan

cia

l D

istr

ict

2. G

reen

wic

h V

illa

ge/S

oh

o3. L

ow

er

East

Sid

e/C

hin

ato

wn

4. C

lin

ton

/Ch

els

ea

5. M

idto

wn

6. S

tuyvesan

t/Tu

rtle

Bay

7. U

pp

er

West

Sid

e8. U

pp

er

East

Sid

e9. M

orn

ing

sid

e H

eig

hts

/Ham

ilto

n10. C

en

tral H

arl

em

11.

East

Harl

em

12. W

ash

ing

ton

Heig

hts

/In

wo

od

MA

NH

AT

TA

N:E

ME

RG

EN

CY

FO

OD

PR

OG

RA

M S

ITE

S A

ND

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

K

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

OA

RD

DIS

TR

ICT

S


CommunityBoard

DistrictTotal

Population

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Served byEFPs


Meals Served byEFPs


1 31,302 3,404 -7,948 2 1 444 239,082 1,225 240,751

2 88,389 11,909 -22,791 11 7 93,182 817,094 138,784 1,049,060

3 160,344 56,706 6,950 14 24 254,684 1,875,221 415,775 2,545,669

4 86,827 15,832 -21,873 9 14 245,677 1,144,022 313,235 1,702,934

5 40,978 5,385 -7,908 6 10 137,965 443,250 222,290 803,506

6 134,648 12,835 -5,516 3 8 146,159 872,754 133,220 1,152,133

7 205,231 28,075 -3,974 16 14 330,191 1,176,875 532,964 2,040,031

8 215,062 17,576 9,589 8 6 22,114 235,970 3,450 261,535

9 102,431 38,923 4,944 10 16 255,001 770,938 455,224 1,481,162

10 106,369 45,133 -340 19 32 405,839 1,147,597 659,707 2,213,143

11 114,533 50,283 -8,271 15 29 318,264 1,771,850 982,640 3,072,755

12 205,310 75,757 26,238 6 22 296,730 1,195,235 733,410 2,225,375

Boro. Total 1,491,423 472,949 -30,901 119 183 2,506,243 11,689,888 4,591,924 18,788,055

NYC Total 7,854,530 2,062,534 554,986 347 784 14,062,555 42,108,379 32,636,595 88,807,529

MANHATTAN: Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by Community Board Districts


13

7

12

11

58

10

1 2

9

3

6

4

14

14

01

23

40.5

Mile

s

Co

mm

un

ity B

oa

rd D

istr

icts

1. A

sto

ria/L

ong Isla

nd C

ity

2. S

unnysid

e/W

oodsid

e3.

Jackson H

eig

hts

4. E

lmhurs

t/C

oro

na

5. R

idgew

ood/M

aspeth

6. R

ego P

ark

/Fore

st H

ills

7. F

lushin

g/W

hitesto

ne

8. F

resh M

eadow

s/H

illscre

st

9. O

zone P

ark

/Woodhaven

10. S

. O

zone P

ark

/How

ard

Beach

11.

Baysid

e/L

ittle N

eck

12. Jam

aic

a/H

olli

s13. Q

ueen

s V

illage

14. R

ockaw

ay/B

road C

hannel

Le

gen

d

Join

t S

oup K

itchen (

32 p

rogra

ms)

and F

ood P

antr

y

Food P

antr

y (

115 p

rogra

ms)

Soup K

itchen (

15 p

rogra

ms)

Em

erg

en

cy F

oo

d P

rog

ram

s

% o

fR

isk P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Ac

cess

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

50%

25%

100%

75%

QU

EE

NS

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

OA

RD

DIS

TR

ICT

S


QUEENS: Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by Community Board Districts

CommunityBoard

DistrictTotal

Population

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Served byEFPs


Meals Served byEFPs


1 197,528 49,717 38,598 1 10 49,290 278,539 222,335 550,164

2 108,699 24,542 15,943 0 4 141,218 227,748 253,685 622,651

3 167,376 42,415 19,015 5 11 341,071 668,961 452,277 1,462,309

4 165,655 42,890 33,594 2 5 120,349 153,101 134,149 407,599

5 164,845 29,940 23,968 1 8 56,861 126,548 111,352 294,762

6 115,458 16,852 6,612 0 6 251,602 214,339 312,932 778,873

7 240,114 41,011 25,916 2 2 210,684 236,262 197,661 644,607

8 144,220 20,915 11,191 0 7 99,499 327,088 252,867 679,454

9 140,863 26,864 12,295 0 6 240,636 479,395 433,320 1,153,351

10 126,347 18,709 -2,461 5 10 278,152 701,089 609,064 1,588,305

11 115,654 9,998 9,229 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 220,320 46,979 -37,977 24 42 988,239 2,877,638 2,394,565 6,260,442

13 193,861 18,137 -13,101 2 18 575,931 1,090,267 967,418 2,633,616

14 102,368 29,364 -2,295 5 22 356,585 933,507 939,754 2,229,846

Boro. Total 2,203,306 418,333 140,528 47 151 3,710,117 8,314,483 7,281,379 19,305,979

NYC Total 7,854,530 2,062,534 554,986 347 784 14,062,555 42,108,379 32,636,595 88,807,529


3

2

1 00.8

1.6

2.4

3.2

0.4

Mile

s

Co

mm

un

ity B

oa

rd D

istr

icts

1. S

taple

ton/ S

t. G

eorg

e2. S

outh

Beach/W

illow

bro

ok

3. T

ottenvill

e/G

reat K

ills

Le

ge

nd

Em

erg

en

cy F

oo

d P

rog

ram

s

Jo

int S

oup

Kitch

en

(7

pro

gra

ms)

an

d F

oo

d P

antr

y

Fo

od

Pa

ntr

y (

18

pro

gra

ms)

So

up

Kitch

en

(2

pro

gra

ms)

% o

fR

isk C

om

mu

nit

y n

ot

Ac

cess

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC 4

3%

63%

100%

ST

AT

EN

IS

LA

ND

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

OM

MU

NIT

Y B

OA

RD

DIS

TR

ICT

S


CommunityBoard

DistrictTotal

Population

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Served byEFPs


Meals Served byEFPs


1 159,238 31,091 13,271 8 21 250,029 706,367 679,470 1,635,865

2 125,256 15,204 9,741 0 2 95,376 196,692 200,112 492,180

3 152,134 10,189 6,180 0 2 1,495 1,495 175,570 292,496

Boro. Total 436,628 56,484 29,192 8 25 346,900 1,018,490 1,055,152 2,420,542

NYC Total 7,854,530 2,062,534 554,986 347 784 14,062,555 42,108,379 32,636,595 88,807,529

STATEN ISLAND: Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by Community Board Districts


PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

ITY

CO

UN

CIL

DIS

TR

ICT

51

51

50

50

19

19

49

49

46

46

31

31

23

23

13

13

11

11 30

30

27

27

26

26

24

24

42

42

88

33

32

32

38

38

22

22

28

28

12

12

20

20

17

17

77

33

33

47

47

18

18

31

31

21

21

43

43

29

29

11

48

48

32

32

34

34

13

13

45

45

37

37

39

39

99

15

15

44

44

35

35

66

4 4

41

41

36

36

22

25

25

40

40

16

16

55

14

14

10

10

1 1

13

13

32

32

88

22

22

5 5

01

23

40.5

Mile

s

Le

ge

nd

Em

erg

en

cy

Fo

od

Pro

gra

ms

Fo

od

Pantr

y (

56

0 p

rog

ram

s)

So

up K

itche

n (

13

8 p

rogra

ms)

Jo

int S

oup

Kitc

hen

(205

pro

gra

ms)

and

Foo

d P

an

try

%

Ris

k P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Ac

ce

ss

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

25%

50%

100%

75%

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK


Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by City Council Districts

CityCouncilDistrict

TotalPopulation

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Servedby EFPs


by EFPs Total Meals

Served by EFPs

1 125,203 30,904 -1,477 9 11 82,113 888,900 116,867 1,087,880

2 163,407 32,536 3,745 13 21 255,204 1,566,019 383,287 2,204,510

3 180,399 90,266 20,285 17 26 417,915 2,190,899 600,552 3,209,366

4 178,965 16,148 -10,266 11 5 65,158 792,658 51,064 908,880

5 184,760 18,251 7,579 3 6 57,887 169,035 53,036 279,953

6 184,332 22,858 5,315 14 12 279,293 943,362 337,730 1,560,385

7 122,607 38,669 -9,434 12 28 380,977 1,179,289 708,455 2,268,722

8 142,794 46,571 -15,831 20 36 511,974 2,490,544 1,521,291 4,523,810

9 130,785 44,348 -26,900 24 35 415,798 1,361,008 740,697 2,517,503

10 94,290 30,849 -3,548 3 12 197,712 813,818 501,194 1,512,724

11 181,768 46,300 30,777 3 7 74,050 255,212 275,055 604,317

12 167,908 43,585 27,395 8 17 187,192 346,726 310,854 844,772

13 177,810 44,061 28,357 8 13 107,121 331,098 122,926 561,145

14 139,882 58,419 21,816 4 19 238,275 1,096,602 929,757 2,264,634

15 145,970 68,618 21,191 6 28 475,016 1,732,650 1,510,060 3,717,726

16 147,774 72,028 37,296 5 28 277,076 920,082 833,547 2,030,705

17 148,429 73,022 14,820 23 41 850,371 2,641,177 1,583,898 5,075,446

18 160,788 56,582 33,364 6 14 209,557 698,074 444,594 1,352,225

19 181,316 18,910 16,266 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 168,160 30,339 17,044 2 2 210,684 236,262 197,661 644,607

21 140,664 25,143 5,950 4 8 291,888 601,746 423,645 1,317,279

22 40,862 33,866 24,874 1 6 29,454 205,235 150,816 385,505

23 169,906 17,096 9,499 1 5 48,054 168,970 182,603 399,627

24 177,117 24,965 3,969 5 15 242,188 649,481 512,533 1,404,202

25 168,510 29,532 18,669 3 8 169,532 220,316 162,781 552,629

26 186,318 36,918 21,957 0 8 161,053 301,052 325,204 787,310

27 146,772 76,391 32,354 12 25 551,027 1,504,251 1,180,938 3,236,216

28 138,927 21,143 -31,759 10 21 675,901 1,891,692 1,666,078 4,233,671

29 195,254 27,490 12,283 0 8 364,888 406,087 486,824 1,257,799

30 173,174 26,940 20,825 0 4 23,570 29,358 24,577 77,504

31 147,418 25,390 -19,914 6 30 768,954 1,473,598 1,373,012 3,615,563

32 170,746 24,963 4,883 2 7 139,634 529,244 507,932 1,176,809

33 168,140 42,389 21,967 5 12 202,839 341,198 169,586 713,623

34 137,044 49,107 10,754 9 20 335,526 906,377 728,793 1,970,696

35 156,614 48,003 -3,062 11 28 566,189 1,718,408 1,284,321 3,568,917

36 146,955 58,022 -13,857 21 40 517,827 1,742,000 1,260,254 3,520,081

37 118,254 46,623 1,446 11 29 336,702 1,500,000 1,418,351 3,255,053

38 126,744 40,995 5,002 4 12 132,103 1,103,022 1,179,347 2,414,471

39 156,550 35,662 16,567 1 4 187,241 311,824 430,292 929,358

40 142,611 45,006 15,504 6 20 234,904 843,750 721,716 1,800,369

41 141,418 59,404 -43,961 22 33 717,496 2,148,930 4,309,420 7,175,846

42 147,935 57,413 25,825 8 17 663,250 733,762 582,369 1,979,380

43 180,974 45,276 35,464 1 4 15,330 61,909 81,763 159,002

44 145,197 41,567 27,848 0 1 17,784 24,678 31,656 74,118

45 137,111 31,548 9,980 1 10 264,423 399,000 371,912 1,035,336

46 156,685 35,173 23,768 0 4 294,563 128,767 118,427 541,757

47 165,148 59,485 36,536 4 14 263,049 264,010 430,718 957,776

48 166,576 46,830 29,092 0 4 204,316 222,614 231,329 658,258

49 164,129 29,941 13,553 8 20 248,727 692,507 666,240 1,607,473

50 157,014 22,224 10,503 0 4 99,281 215,746 225,067 540,094

51 156,469 14,765 10,714 1 2 1,495 115,431 175,570 292,496


PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y S

TA

TE

AS

SE

MB

LY

DIS

TR

ICT

63

63

62

62

82

82

59

59

31

31

24

24

26

26

61

61

27

27

60

60

81

81

29

29

33

33

23

23

25

25

40

40

37

37

28

28

51

51

32

32

38

38

46

46

30

30

23

23

84

84

80

80

50

50

36

36

35

35

83

83

75

75

41

41

85

85

45

45

52

52

22

22

53

53

44

44

71

71

54

54

58

58

68

68

76

76

79

79

47

47

49

49

55

55

48

48

78

78

69

69 57

57

56

56

66

66

34

34

64

64

43

43

42

42

31

31

67

67

77

77

70

70

72

72

73

73

74

74

39

39

60

60

86

86

64

64

82

82

65

65

23

23

85

85

65

65

01

23

40.5

Mile

s

Le

ge

nd

Em

erg

en

cy

Fo

od

Pro

gra

ms

Fo

od

Pantr

y (

56

0 p

rog

ram

s)

Jo

int S

oup

Kitc

hen

(205

pro

gra

ms)

and

Foo

d P

an

try

So

up K

itche

n (

13

8 p

rogra

ms)

%

Ris

k P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Ac

ce

ss

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

25%

50%

100%

75%

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK


StateAssemblyDistrict

TotalPopulation

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Served byEFPs


Meals Served byEFPs


22 107,495 25,050 13,352 2 2 210,684 236,262 197,661 664,607

23 146,967 32,696 19,697 3 9 102,415 267,112 252,165 621,692

24 121,246 15,044 10,843 0 1 7,347 41,381 60,529 109,257

25 173,538 28,623 21,349 1 6 74,182 187,640 150,114 411,936

26 125,654 9,822 7,868 0 0 0 0 0 0

27 122,681 27,208 15,161 0 5 273,420 377,352 377,778 1,028,550

28 115,013 20,664 12,282 0 5 196,978 214,339 312,932 724,249

29 113,101 18,523 -13,729 7 23 589,977 1,171,549 953,236 2,714,762

30 142,005 34,537 32,164 0 2 14,203 16,142 14,253 44,598

31 169,138 23,391 -10,511 6 22 494,502 1,209,223 1,083,778 2,787,503

32 105,706 18,000 -42,254 15 25 748,394 2,185,254 1,863,410 4,797,058

33 95,790 18,471 1,739 3 12 185,625 560,524 479,282 1,225,431

34 112,922 21,162 16,235 1 3 57,044 84,719 52,667 194,430

35 124,130 27,447 12,892 3 9 191,420 500,428 454,913 1,146,761

36 99,704 22,988 17,752 1 5 29,034 169,517 112,836 311,387

37 107,862 26,419 11,290 0 10 163,596 392,118 415,772 971,485

38 103,301 23,780 7,444 2 8 158,340 464,008 421,207 1,043,556

39 117,051 24,509 6,952 3 4 212,956 236,915 78,847 528,718

40 156,694 43,294 20,344 7 12 538,294 471,924 298,777 1,308,995

41 129,921 26,033 13,618 0 5 208,450 99,543 87,510 395,503

42 135,833 33,458 6,735 4 17 300,311 721,727 724,356 1,746,394

43 128,471 29,328 -9,269 8 16 373,621 918,528 1,101,589 2,393,737

44 125,002 51,561 40,988 0 1 86,600 71,131 73,931 231,662

45 120,162 34,899 23,341 1 2 6,745 58,601 35,827 101,174

46 124,842 38,946 21,395 3 10 185,913 173,959 252,446 612,317

47 117,040 25,400 11,112 0 4 88,770 99,762 201,084 389,616

48 142,959 42,864 27,338 0 1 88,296 163,020 286,662 537,978

49 105,518 26,232 10,444 0 2 51,383 245,854 572,935 870,172

50 122,798 49,401 35,078 2 6 181,451 151,048 130,434 462,933

51 87,249 35,264 7,996 5 12 87,070 888,591 678,086 1,653,747

52 97,391 45,925 31,551 3 10 55,502 359,989 174,800 590,291

53 128,119 40,824 7,946 6 16 335,112 1,033,228 812,605 2,180,945

54 118,599 38,433 -6,570 10 19 180,136 1,107,607 807,785 2,095,527

55 119,297 41,921 -19,971 18 33 472,208 1,619,269 1,532,423 3,623,900

56 128,652 50,115 -41,813 22 41 770,974 1,862,973 3,868,499 6,502,446

57 121,666 51,865 15,467 10 22 332,592 1,365,856 737,650 2,436,098

58 133,806 30,217 2,351 3 14 281,203 782,098 756,408 1,819,709

59 90,920 16,969 5,617 0 3 283,523 124,747 116,465 524,735

60 94,579 4,695 314 1 3 14,700 38,797 24,931 78,428

61 82,740 21,856 8,254 8 20 248,533 668,454 648,605 1,565,591

62 108,487 6,809 2,577 1 2 1,495 115,431 175,570 292,496

63 150,822 23,124 18,047 0 3 96,872 234,605 230,977 562,454

64 96,252 17,131 -7,970 9 12 91,203 763,149 126,673 981,025

65 115,346 6,911 -997 1 4 1,465 54,930 3,450 59,846

66 102,677 31,102 -18,038 13 13 100,909 1,194,956 206,180 1,502,046

67 112,802 21,425 3,530 13 9 236,243 735,208 315,398 1,286,849

68 90,484 15,533 -45,995 19 33 404,172 1,984,440 1,057,208 3,445,820

69 165,624 45,983 18,069 10 10 138,226 692,768 363,832 1,194,826

70 118,492 48,352 -2,851 17 33 456,844 1,288,242 761,809 2,506,895

71 170,953 43,707 9,146 6 20 261,736 781,727 518,667 1,562,131

72 117,109 35,472 9,122 2 9 111,193 604,333 380,498 1,096,024

73 156,754 16,907 -5,169 12 6 86,648 856,973 66,359 1,009,979

74 127,213 20,033 -7,655 6 14 261,340 1,346,014 375,067 1,982,421

75 117,715 59,262 17,908 11 20 356,262 1,387,147 416,783 2,160,193

76 81,862 30,957 11,394 5 13 220,410 712,544 590,507 1,523,460

77 154,343 54,487 32,924 1 9 86,181 249,370 308,860 644,411

78 140,220 46,325 20,427 2 9 153,173 649,084 538,954 1,341,212

79 120,012 64,836 24,955 10 37 482,353 1,771,448 1,382,462 3,636,262

80 131,131 57,125 43,031 9 14 144,074 414,339 178,775 737,188

81 116,503 38,066 27,369 3 5 46,435 103,084 119,312 268,832

82 107,242 23,874 14,299 1 2 20,424 59,050 44,576 124,050

83 115,992 34,740 22,622 6 15 132,608 280,579 261,106 674,293

84 127,407 45,736 -9,526 25 40 838,689 2,866,481 1,746,395 5,451,565

85 91,351 34,123 15,202 5 12 175,126 475,908 291,124 942,158

86 102,171 42,680 9,773 5 20 276,970 1,145,379 970,869 2,393,217

Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by State Assembly Districts


PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y S

TA

TE

SE

NA

TE

DIS

TR

ICT

24

24

10

10

11

11

16

16

15

15

34

34

27

27

23

23

19

19

22

22

12

12

14

14

17

17

32

32

14

14

18

18

36

36

20

20

31

31

21

21

26

26

23

23

34

34

13

13

11

11

29

29

33

33

30

30

25

25

28

28

25

25

28

28

10

10

25

25

34

34

28

28

01

23

40.5

Mile

s

Fo

od

Pantr

y (

56

0 p

rog

ram

s)

Le

ge

nd

Em

erg

en

cy

Fo

od

Pro

gra

ms

So

up K

itche

n (

13

8 p

rogra

ms)

Join

t S

oup

Kitc

hen

(205

pro

gra

ms)

and

Foo

d P

an

try

%

Ris

k P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Ac

ce

ss

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

25%

50%

100%

75%

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK


StateSenateDistrict

TotalPopulation

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Servedby EFPs


by EFPs Total Meals

Served by EFPs

10 315,406 42,455 -53,485 18 45 1,406,138 3,265,154 2,715,681 7,386,973

11 385,774 53,292 40,722 3 8 62,793 253,886 191,025 507,704

12 272,690 39,913 14,950 1 14 192,313 512,968 433,994 1,139,274

13 195,289 24,263 -4,584 7 16 461,420 822,062 586,426 1,869,908

14 361,186 71,562 8,230 14 47 788,926 2,170,566 1,960,152 4,919,645

15 290,837 52,025 21,261 3 15 356,601 885,906 904,397 2,146,904

16 382,122 134,823 113,434 1 6 441,927 403,941 489,703 1,335,570

17 284,368 105,006 17,984 19 43 680,391 2,258,250 1,744,192 4,682,833

18 270,558 112,942 -56,354 37 71 1,177,301 4,239,463 5,235,286 10,652,051

19 291,640 80,804 20,952 17 34 1,040,305 1,368,034 1,176,300 3,584,639

20 274,570 75,850 -2,196 16 37 713,071 1,927,671 1,910,448 4,551,190

21 295,378 69,214 -627 7 29 824,195 1,506,920 1,666,025 3,997,140

22 305,615 84,169 53,153 2 7 72,863 322,730 663,542 1,059,135

23 365,739 113,568 80,038 12 36 518,589 1,111,873 1,153,824 2,784,286

24 317,843 38,303 25,565 1 6 108,289 330,687 392,884 831,860

25 402,055 84,086 24,990 17 31 299,543 2,339,290 575,865 3,214,697

26 263,454 93,116 43,466 15 21 237,820 1,374,197 295,129 1,907,145

27 298,337 83,812 59,464 0 6 112,665 137,247 244,913 494,826

28 308,266 69,660 -14,141 27 57 654,569 3,234,621 2,232,348 6,121,537

29 202,712 68,219 -10,437 28 29 533,989 2,449,252 552,655 3,535,896

30 256,849 59,200 -43,880 42 70 973,503 3,400,416 1,918,842 6,292,761

31 297,255 54,307 -18,058 9 22 317,230 1,511,176 902,924 2,731,330

32 259,212 106,613 36,260 19 45 1,003,061 2,532,782 1,658,791 5,194,634

33 263,950 93,229 37,542 11 37 413,275 2,015,220 1,633,952 4,062,448

34 398,281 156,241 112,388 10 16 229,395 576,124 351,803 1,157,322

36 295,142 95,861 48,346 12 36 442,385 1,157,942 1,045,492 2,645,819

Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by State Senate Districts


PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

AT

RIS

KB

Y C

ON

GR

ES

SIO

NA

L D

IST

RIC

T

13

13

9 9

66

5 5

7 7

10

10

12

12

88

11

11

16

16

17

17

15

15

77

88

66

14

14

14

14

13

13

99

7 7

88

12

12

15

15

15

15

14

14

01

23

40.5

Mile

s

Fo

od

Pantr

y (

56

0 p

rog

ram

s)

Le

ge

nd

Em

erg

en

cy

Fo

od

Pro

gra

ms

So

up K

itche

n (

13

8 p

rogra

ms)

Join

t S

oup

Kitc

hen

(205

pro

gra

ms)

and

Foo

d P

an

try

%

Ris

k P

op

ula

tio

n n

ot

Ac

ce

ss

ing

EF

Ps

, F

oo

d S

tam

ps,

or

WIC

0%

25%

50%

100%

75%

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

:EM

ER

GE

NC

Y F

OO

D P

RO

GR

AM

SIT

ES

AN

D P

OP

UL

AT

ION

S A

T R

ISK


CongressionalDistrict

TotalPopulation

PopulationAt Risk

of Hunger



FS/WICNo. of Soup


Elderly(65+) Meals

Served by EFPs

Adults (18+ to 64)

Meals Served byEFPs


Meals Served byEFPs


5 555,828 99,530 64,760 5 11 516,107 625,151 441,761 1,583,020

6 595,699 116,702 -45,911 36 95 2,281,743 5,740,494 4,959,889 12,982,126

7 639,089 152,744 104,572 17 38 450,926 1,447,468 914,289 2,812,683

8 819,560 264,449 110,014 41 57 1,028,326 4,110,470 2,252,353 7,391,148

9 689,964 153,905 103,558 0 17 514,300 882,143 913,700 2,310,143

10 638,678 202,031 -28,643 47 97 2,306,414 5,130,779 6,199,864 13,637,056

11 562,948 154,117 -482 33 85 1,471,507 3,941,178 3,731,936 9,144,620

12 646,907 188,289 69,919 26 65 1,061,892 4,044,275 2,480,866 7,587,033

13 607,269 100,122 54,300 11 32 396,423 1,120,486 1,142,994 2,659,903

14 534,836 144,704 69,829 22 36 391,791 2,076,329 617,735 3,086,207

15 438,011 72,237 -123,611 53 102 1,349,958 5,210,153 3,044,037 9,604,148

16 688,894 284,094 113,877 47 126 2,053,114 7,076,329 5,297,417 14,426,860

17 436,847 129,601 62,852 10 23 240,055 702,772 639,755 1,582,582

Socio-Demographic and EFP Data by Congressional Districts


This study’s goal of presenting a picture of hunger in NewYork City was framed by three questions that seek to:• Present a representative view of the New York City

residents who access emergency food assistance to take care of their most basic need, food

• Examine how Emergency Food Programs (EFPs) operate, and highlight possible challenges they face

• Portray the overall population of New York City residents at risk of going hungry and determine if there are communities within this population that are not accessing services

EMERGENCY FOOD PARTICIPANTSThe research shows that by a conservative estimate, overtwo million New York City residents are at risk of goinghungry, and that the approximately 1,300 soup kitchensand food pantries around the city are serving half of thatnumber.

The findings reveal that more than half of EFP participantsare Black/African American and that more than a third areLatino/Hispanic. It also reveals that women comprisemore than half the number of people depending on EFPs.All program participants share the constraints and impactof poverty, with 98 percent of EFP participants reportingan income of less than $25,000, including 85 percent whoare struggling to survive on an annual income of less than$15,000. The vast majority of EFP participants, 78 percent,are living in rented accommodations.

The analysis further illustrates the most vulnerable popu-lations who are at risk of going hungry. Nearly a quarter ofprogram participants are the elderly over the age of 65 —almost half of whom are foreign-born. People living withdisabilities account for a quarter of all program partici-pants. Approximately 25 percent of program participantsare single women with children. Children alone accountfor a little more than a quarter of the overall number ofpeople in households benefiting from EFPs.

In summary, New York City residents at risk of going hun-gry are largely comprised of the elderly, the disabled,women and children, and the working poor in impover-ished minority communities who rent the places wherethey live.

Women account for the majority of program participantsin each of the sub-populations of people at risk of goinghungry. Single women with children show a higheremployment rate than any other group of program partic-ipants, but, comparable to the total, most depend on anannual income of $15,000 or less. While elderly womenshow long-term use of EFPs (comparable to the majorityof the elderly), there is a high percentage of youngerwomen who have been accessing the programs for lessthan six months.

Recent studies indicate that there is a possibility that somelow-skilled female workers who dropped off the welfarerolls after the enactment of welfare reform legislation withthe Personal Responsibility and Work OpportunityReconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) may have beenimpacted hard by the recent recession, including womenwho lost or are stuck in entry-level jobs.xxiii Like the major-ity of all program participants, a majority of women com-ing to EFPs have not completed high school education.Increased government funding for education, training andchildcare programs, which can be included in the reau-thorization of PRWORA, would provide this population oflow-income women a real chance of becoming self-suffi-cient and finding a path out of poverty permanently.

The findings also show that the city’s soup kitchens andfood pantries have become a long-term option for some ofthe city’s most vulnerable people, such as the elderly anddisabled New York City residents who show a high rate ofprogram use of more than two years. Long-term use ofEFPs gives rise to a question about the role of foodpantries and soup kitchens as a long-term subsidy formany vulnerable communities. This finding offers anopportunity to consider not only the causes for this long-term need but also, the alternative measures necessary torespond to and meet this need.

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION


Participation in Government Food AssistanceProgramsThe study shows that participation in government foodassistance programs among EFP participants is alarming-ly low; for example, less than a third of all program partic-ipants are receiving federal Food Stamps. Closer analysisreveals differences in Food Stamps participation ratesamong the at-risk populations; for instance, a little lessthan half of SSI recipients accessing EFPs participate in theFood Stamps Program, whereas only one sixth of the eld-erly who come to EFPs receive Food Stamps. WIC partici-pation among potentially eligible EFP participants is alsolow, as only one third of women with children under theage of five are receiving WIC benefits. Children in morethan two-thirds of households benefiting from EFPs par-ticipate in the School Meals Program, which rates as thehighest participation rate in a government food assistanceprogram among EFP households.

Food Stamps

SSI RecipientsA little less than half of the SSI recipients who access EFPsparticipate in the Food Stamps Program. Nationally, theUSDA reports that Food Stamp participation rates amongeligible individuals who are elderly or disabled and alreadyreceiving SSI and Medicaid is much higher than amongeligible elderly and disabled individuals who are notreceiving these other program benefits.xxiv This year, NewYork State is further strengthening the relationshipbetween SSI and Food Stamps, by implementing the NewYork State Nutrition Improvement Project (NYSNIP). Thiswill allow all SSI participants who live alone to get thesame or more Food Stamp benefits than they would if theyapplied through the regular Food Stamp applicationprocess. The anti-hunger community has a role to play inraising awareness about this new initiative to ensureenrollment of eligible individuals and to ensure thatenrolled participants receive the full benefit amount forwhich they are eligible.xxv

The ElderlyOnly one sixth of the the elderly coming to EFPs partici-pate in the Food Stamps Program. Most of the elderly arestruggling to survive on Social Security benefits and forthem, there is no automatic enrollment in the FoodStamps Program. Some EFPs play a role in being proactivewith this group by helping program participants to applyfor their food stamp benefits or referring them to advoca-cy organizations that can walk them through the applica-tion process. However, even with this outreach and assis-

tance many elderly do not participate. There are variousreasons for this, including confusion concerning the appli-cation process and the perception that the applicationprocess is too arduous for too little benefit, whereas com-ing to an EFP may provide a direct service in a familiarneighborhood setting.

Targeted efforts to improve and expand Food Stamps out-reach services continue. It is hoped, for example, that thenew Medicare Discount Drug Card will provide a new wayto increase Food Stamp participation among the elderly.In 2003, Medicare was expanded to help the elderly andpeople with disabilities pay for drug costs. Medicare PartD, the new benefit, goes into effect January 2006, and inthe meantime a temporary Medicare Discount Drug Cardprogram will provide an annual federally-funded subsidyto help low-income Medicare recipients cover their pre-scription drug costs. It is thought that the target group forthis program is comprised of many eligible people who donot participate in the Food Stamps Program. This gives thegroups who will be involved in developing outreach andawareness about the Medicare Discount Drug Card pro-gram (including the federal and state governments, drugcard sponsors, pharmacies, nonprofit groups, communitygroups and medical providers) an ideal opportunity toincorporate outreach about the Food Stamps Program.But, given the very low participation rates of the elderlyand their high dependency on EFPs, increasing FoodStamp participation among the at-risk elderly communityseems to require new vision, as described in the recom-mendations/community development section below.

Elderly ImmigrantsForeign-born elderly comprise a sub-section of the elderlycommunity that needs particular attention. Since theenactment of the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation,many foreign-born New York City residents have becomeineligible for some government benefits. Part of the prob-lem for this group is the federal five-year bar, which leavesmany elderly legal residents, who have not been in the U.S.for five years, without a seat at the Food Stamps table. NewYork State recognized this problem in 1997, by introducingthe Food Assistance Program (FAP). FAP was originallyestablished to provide state and locally funded Food Stampbenefits to the elderly, the disabled and children with immi-grant status who had been made ineligible for federal FoodStamps by welfare reform legislation.


Recent amendments to the law make lawful immigrantswho are children or disabled eligible for federal FoodStamps without regard to their date of entry to the coun-try. However, Congress did not extend the same protec-tion to elderly immigrants or to immigrants who are vic-tims of domestic violence, two groups served by NewYork’s Food Assistance Program (FAP). Unfortunately, FAPis limited in the help it provides to these two groupsbecause eligibility is restricted to individuals who havebeen in the country since August 22, 1996. Consequentlyparticipation in FAP is low, which may be considered rea-son enough to let it sunset in 2005. The dependence offoreign-born elderly on soup kitchens and food pantriesindicates a need to preserve and extend outreach for thisprogram. Further, by eliminating the arbitrary “date ofentry,” more immigrants at risk of going hungry will beable to receive the help they need.

WIC

Only one third of single women with children under theage of five accessing EFPs participate in the WIC program.Similar to the school meals issue, this is not a program thatserves entire households. WIC is also not an entitlementprogram, therefore, participation is limited by the amountof funding appropriated by Congress, as well as any sup-plementary funds provided by the states. According to theNew York State Department of Health, only 278,148 of the506,843 eligible New York City residents were enrolled inthe program in 2003.xxvi

WIC is successful as a program that improves the healthand nutrition of the people who receive it, for exampleWIC participation has been linked to decreased Medicaidspending and increased birth weight.xxviii Hence, one clearrecommendation is to make this an entitlement programso that federal funding will be guaranteed for all the peo-ple who need it.

School Meals

Children in 68.0 percent of EFP participant householdsbenefit from the School Meals Program. This indicatesthat there is still some work to be done to ensure theenrollment of all eligible children. However, perhaps themost immediate concern for the hunger communityregarding programs that benefit children is the extremelylow participation rates during the summer months. Onlya quarter of those who are eligible participate in programs

during the summer months.xxix Federal policy needs to beaddressed to make it easier for community organizations,as well as local schools, to provide summer meals for chil-dren. Further, making the eligibility criteria for SchoolMeals consistent with other food assistance programs,such as WIC, would allow more children at risk of goinghungry to access this service.

Further Implications for Emergency FoodParticipants An overall look at how elderly and disabled New York Cityresidents avail of the food they need, may provide a moregeneral guide to improve their participation in the FoodStamps Program. There may be lessons to learn from theservices that obviously appeal to these populations. Whilethe elderly have a very low participation rate in the FoodStamps Program, they are consistent long-term partici-pants of EFPs. People living with disabilities have alsobeen accessing EFPs long-term. Further, outside of thetraditional EFPs, both populations turn to other commu-nity food programs, like senior centers, to access foodassistance in a community environment. Clearly a neigh-borhood community setting provides the comfort our eld-erly and disabled neighbors need to access assistance.This issue is further explored in the recommendations/community development section below.

Whether talking about the elderly, people with disabilities,the working poor or women with children, it can be saidthat these are simply the groups that get left behind whenthere is not enough to go around, as they are the most vul-nerable to the impact of poverty. They exist along a con-tinuum and can be viewed as generations of peopleentrapped by poverty.

Viewing at-risk populations separately highlights thepotential for improving various government food pro-grams to decrease the number of people dependent onEFPs today. By recognizing the dependence (and/or eligi-bility) of the most vulnerable EFP participants on a num-ber of government benefit programs, the need to look atways in which the administrative process could be madesmoother become clear. For example, by simplifying theway people apply for benefits and by reducing the numberof application forms.


In addition to increasing the participation of eligible pro-gram participants in various benefit programs, there is anopportunity to save administrative costs by creating appli-cation forms that target various populations. For example,the elderly should be able to apply for any benefits theymay be eligible for on one application form as well as workwith one caseworker who can process and monitor theapplication and provide any follow-up explanations andservices needed by program participants.

This work is important to achieve near-term solutions tothe widespread problem of hunger. Ultimately, long-termsolutions are necessary to make sure that today’s popula-tions of working poor or young mothers at risk of goinghungry do not become tomorrow’s populations of dis-abled and elderly at risk of going hungry. Later in this sec-tion, permanent long-term strategies to eliminate hungerare discussed.

EMERGENCY FOOD PROVIDERSApproximately 1,300 soup kitchens and food pantries pro-vide emergency food services to New York City residents atrisk of going hungry throughout the five boroughs. Theyvary in size, types of services and resources. A majority ofthe programs are faith-based. In recent years, the trendhas been to increase the provision of fresh meats, fish andproduce to program participants. Programs spend almost60 percent of their budgets on food, less than half reporthaving no paid employees and almost all rely on volun-teers.

This study shows that EFPs are serving the needs of halfthe population of New York City residents at risk of goinghungry. Closer analysis of how the programs operatemakes this achievement seem almost miraculous. Unpaidvolunteers account for 83 percent of all EFP staff in pro-grams, and while volunteers are much needed and muchappreciated by the hunger community, this dependencyon a voluntary workforce is unique to EFPs and can createan array of logistical and administrative obstacles. It can,for example, be a factor that limits the flexibility of pro-grams to operate on certain days and during certain hours.

The average budget for a New York City EFP is $49,445, butthis figure factors in the bigger and better funded pro-grams, most of which are located in Manhattan (a handfulof the programs with large budgets are located in the otherboroughs). When viewed by borough, a clearer sense ofprogram budgets emerges, for example, programs in

Queens have an average annual budget of $17,385, where-as Manhattan programs have an average annual budget of$137,330. In general, approximately half of all programshave a budget of less than $17,500.

Bigger budgets give programs the flexibility to operate withmore paid employees and provide services more frequent-ly and at different times of the day. Most of the programsthat operate just one or two days per week are located inthe other boroughs, whereas 60 percent of the programsthat provide services seven days a week are located inManhattan. Also, more Manhattan programs are open inthe mornings and evenings. In the other boroughs, themajority of programs are open at different times betweenthe hours of 11:00 am and 4:00 pm. The findings in theprogram participants section show that the working pooraccount for a smaller percentage of EFP participants, thanthe elderly or the disabled. Providing programs with theresources to improve access to services, i.e. open moredays/longer hours could help more working families andindividuals to get the help they need.

Interestingly, regardless of budget size almost all EFPs relyheavily on volunteers. However, the EFPs with the biggestbudgets are able to mix paid employees with volunteers tocreate well-trained and well-supported staff team poolswith a wide range of expertise.

These findings on EFPs are best considered in light of thefindings in the populations at risk section of the report,which includes poverty and food program location andparticipation by borough.

AT-RISK POPULATIONSFurther analysis of program participants informationregarding enrollment in government food programs andCensus data reveals that of the total population at risk ofgoing hungry, 38.1 percent access only EFPs, 12 percentaccess EFPs as well as Food Stamps and WIC, 23 percentaccess only Food Stamps and/or WIC, and 28.4 percent arenot accessing any services (EFPs or Food Stamps or WIC).


Looking at the population distribution of people at risk ofgoing hungry across the five boroughs helps to showwhere people are located and where services are available— for example, 38 percent of the total population at risk ofhunger is located in the Bronx. But considering popula-tion density provides a better lens to view what percentageof borough populations are at risk of hunger and in thisway can provide a better tool for understanding the prob-lem of hunger at the local level.

For example, rated by population density, Manhattan hasthe highest percentage of an at-risk population receivinggovernment food benefits and/or emergency food servic-es, whereas over half the population at risk on StatenIsland are not receiving either government food benefits oremergency food services. The Bronx is interesting as anarea that reflects both high population distribution anddensity of the at-risk population, and this suggests thatpoverty is more severe in the Bronx than in other areas.This population density picture helps us to think abouthunger as a complicated widespread problem that affectsmany communities throughout the city, and also allows usto consider ways in which the hunger community canbegin to strengthen the larger community’s response tohunger.

The research suggests that well-funded EFPs help to createa very strong social safety net which makes it easier forpeople to access public and private food assistance servic-es, and for example, is possibly a reason why the findingsdo not show an at-risk population in Manhattan who areneither accessing EFPs nor government food benefits. Thesocial safety nets in the other boroughs are weakerbecause many of the programs have very small budgetsand are not as accessible, and some communities havefew, if any, programs available. Thus, some individualsand families at risk of hunger can fall between the gaps.

Manhattan’s role as a city center that serves the entire pop-ulation of New York offers another consideration —Manhattan-based EFPs and government food benefitsoffices serve as a resource for the entire population of NewYork City residents at risk of hunger. Some Manhattan pro-grams may provide services to at-risk individuals and fam-ilies from other boroughs because of lack of services inhome neighborhoods, wider range of services, longeropening hours and/or proximity to work.

In addition, for the purposes of this report, the averagepopulation at risk of hunger is determined to only includepeople living at or below 125 percent of the federal pover-ty level. The research also shows that people with incomesabove 125 percent of the federal poverty level are access-ing EFPs, and it is likely that this trend is reflected by theManhattan numbers.

It is interesting to compare the boroughs to see wherepoverty is located and to see where the services are avail-able. In terms of finding solutions and answers however, itis less helpful to compare and contrast the boroughs witheach other and more helpful to look specifically at theareas within various boroughs to understand why they donot have services and develop ways that the hunger com-munity can work collaboratively to strengthen the safetynet in these areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS Clearly, well-funded programs are better positioned tomeet the diverse needs of the people they serve allowingthem to provide more food on more days. Also, these pro-grams often have the flexibility to provide a wider array ofservices that go beyond food and focus on benefit out-reach and permanent long-term solutions to hunger, suchas income security and job-training. These models andthe initiatives they implement lend the hunger communi-ty as a whole, and community and political leaders thefoundation on which to base a solid strategic plan to endhunger.

The analysis also highlights the potential for the hungercommunity to develop more collaborative approaches asthe work to combat hunger continues. Developing bor-ough based approaches to address hunger is one way tostrengthen and increase funding for food programs in theother boroughs. Borough task forces that include electedand appointed officials, community leaders, EFPs, hungeradvocates and people at risk of going hungry could help totarget government and private funding to specific highneed areas, while building a community developmentapproach to solving hunger.


Community Development SolutionsA common theme in the findings of this report is theimportance of community. This theme is driven in largepart by the earlier analysis in the EFP participants’ find-ings, where the low participation of the elderly in govern-ment food programs, and their tendency to be long-termprogram participants of EFPs is discussed. This analysisshows that many of the most vulnerable EFP participantsturn to food programs in their local community to find thehelp they need. While the role of government bodies toimplement solutions at the federal, state and city levelscontinues to be essential, there is also a need to focus oncommunity elements that can help people to fight for andaccess the means to escape the trap of poverty and hunger.

By building strength and knowledge in individuals, fami-lies and local non-profit and community organizations, anetwork of local resources develops that gives shape to tai-lored community agendas. Communities can seek theappropriate funding to develop programs that make senseto local residents, and can build on the experiences of localresidents to develop new and alternative programs.

At the same time, this type of community focus creates themeans by which local people are kept informed about cur-rent events and business and education news and canorganize themselves to fight against poverty. On the onehand, grassroots organizing at the local level could spurcollaborative work among neighborhood nonprofits,elected officials and community and business leaders.Simultaneously, these groups could develop public-pri-vate partnerships with government agencies and publicand private funders who in turn would work at the macro-level to target community approaches to solving hunger.

Borough Hunger Task Forces

A first step to achieving both objectives would be to estab-lish Borough Hunger Task Forces, comprised of hungerand poverty organizations, local community, business andpolitical leaders, potential funders and individuals andfamilies at risk of going hungry – engaging the at-risk com-munity in solution planning is key to advancing the fightagainst hunger in New York City.

These Borough Hunger Task Forces would focus on:

(1) Developing and implementing strategic plans to

increase government benefits outreach and enrollment

through:

• Partnering with local programs, businesses and HRA to organize local public awareness initiatives to help potentially eligible people learn about the types of government assistance available, and learn how and where to apply for assistance.

• Developing a public education agenda to encourage public and private funders to increase the pool of funding available for benefits outreach and enrollment services.

• Collaborating with city agencies to increase the number and type of locations (in addition to HRA offices) where families and individuals at risk can access information and application forms.

(2) Increasing funds and food to help local programs

develop stronger and varied services by:

• Tracking and making available information to local programs about appropriate public and private funding sources.

• Working with public and private funding sources to increase food distribution to new and existing programs.

• Providing support to local programs to develop grant and contract applications and support funding applications for temporary and long-term collaborative projects between programs to close gaps in service.

• Developing relationships with public and private funders and provide information to funders on local needs and types of services that would help to allevi-ate and eliminate hunger.

• Advocating to increase public and private pools of money to fund ending hunger initiatives.

(3) Facilitating program planning to ensure widespread

distribution of needed programs throughout the

borough via:

• Using the report findings to target new program development and grow existing services in areas where there are at-risk populations but very few, if any, EFPs located.


• Supporting program mentoring. Many new or developing programs already turn to older programs to research program planning and funding. Programs could further develop this type of mentor-ing capacity, by developing partnerships and/or loaning employees to assist with strategic planning and administrative work, as well as working together to access funding.

• Encouraging program collaboration in areas where there are clusters of small programs that operate one or two days per week. These programs may have an opportunity to become stronger by collaborating to seek local support and sharing resources such as space or volunteers.

(4) Engaging individuals and families at risk of going

hungry as well as local EFP staff and volunteers in the

work of the task forces through:

• Ensuring that the experiences of the at-risk popula-tions and the EFPs working at the grassroots level guide the development of local programs and policy.

• Recruiting at-risk individuals and EFP volunteers and staff (below the Executive level) to participate in, and organize, meetings and projects.

• Supporting forums and trainings that would be of interest to EFP participants, for example, Voter Education, Registration and Mobilization, Job Training and Career Planning, Working with your Elected Officials, Finding and Using Community Resources. This type of grassroots organizing and training would provide a platform for long-term planning that focuses on the commonalities of the EFP participants, as discussed in this report.

Develop Strategies to Address and Eliminatethe Root Causes of HungerThe findings show how widespread the problem of hungeris. Also, the latest Census findingsxxx demonstrate thatnational poverty levels have increased, which in turn indi-cates that the problem of hunger is set to worsen. ManyEFPs are working to address this by focusing beyond food.It is clear that there is an opportunity for the hunger com-munity to work collaboratively to build more energy in thistype of permanent long-term solutions work. The founda-tion of this part of the work lies in the understanding thathunger is about much more than food.

As this research shows, the single greatest factor influenc-ing dependence on EFPs is poverty. By ensuring that peo-ple do not go hungry, EFPs provide the most direct andimmediate solution to the worst symptom of that poverty.By providing food, EFPs help to save lives today, whiledoing the work to ensure long-term solutions. Focusingbeyond food and working collaboratively to implementpermanent solutions to poverty attacks the root causes ofhunger, and helps to build the resources of individuals andfamilies so that they have access to nutritious food at alltimes.

While this seems like an ambitious goal, the program par-ticipants and provider findings in this report lay thegroundwork for some clear objectives that could be thefocus of the task forces’ long-term work, including incomesecurity, education, housing, healthcare and employment:

Livable Income

The findings show that people at risk of going hungry areliving on limited incomes and that working poor individu-als and families do not make enough money to afford eventheir basic needs. An increase in the minimum wagewould be a first step in working to make sure all workershave a livable income – a fair wage with benefits.

Education

The research also shows that education is a key issue.Almost half of the people accessing EFPs have not gradu-ated from high school, and only 17 percent of EFP partici-pants have any training or education beyond high school.Education is important not only as a tool that helps peo-ple to find jobs, but is also the means by which peopleaccess better paying jobs and advance in their careers.

Affordable Housing

The high cost of housing in New York City is driving hugenumbers of city residents to EFPs. The program partici-pant findings reveal that the majority (78 percent) of EFPparticipants are living in private rented accommodationor public housing. Homeless New York City residentsaccount for 12 percent of people coming to EFPs.


Affordable Healthcare

Many elderly and disabled people are forced to choosebetween prescriptions and food expenses. This is espe-cially true for people on the type of incomes that EFP par-ticipants struggle to survive on.xxxi At a time when overthree million New York City residents are living withouthealth insurance (and the U.S. Census Bureau has justreleased data that shows that the number of uninsuredAmericans has climbed by 1.4 million people to a total of45 million, and of those most at risk the data reveals thatchildren in poverty are more likely to be uninsured), NewYork needs a comprehensive strategy that provides health-care for all, and addresses skyrocketing health insurancepremiums and prescription drug costs.xxxii

Final RemarksIn this report, the Food Bank outlines the faces of hungerin New York City today, and provides a road-map to someof the key issues that the hunger community is addressingto fulfill the mission of eliminating hunger. The Food Bankwill continue to explore these issues and expand upon rec-ommendations with further research, analysis and policydevelopment, to help the collective work of the New YorkCity hunger community to implement strategies that willhelp people leave the soup kitchen and food pantry linesand develop the means in their communities to locate andafford the food they need to feed themselves and theirfamilies.

GLOSSARY OF TERMSGLOSSARY OF TERMS


Agency: A nonprofit, community-based organizationthat packages or cooks food provided by a food bank forpeople seeking emergency food assistance, who wouldotherwise not get enough to eat or not eat well. Anagency may operate one or more food programs, such asa pantry or soup kitchen, and may provide additional,non-food services.

America’s Second Harvest, The Nation’s Food Bank

Network (ASH or A2H): The national anti-hunger non-profit organization that organizes over 200 food banksand food rescue organizations, of which the Food Bankis a participating member.

Emergency Food Participant: Any individual – elderly,adult, or child – who receives food from a soup kitchenor food pantry, whether present at the food program orsharing the household of someone who has received afood package from a program.

Emergency Food Program (Also, Emergency Food

Provider) (EFP): A soup kitchen or food pantry servingpeople seeking only food relief. The Food Bank providesfood to its network of 1,200 emergency food programscitywide.

Emergency Food Network: The community of foodproviders and the individuals that staff them includingsoup kitchens, food pantries and shelters. Note that forthis study, shelters were not included.

Food Bank: A nonprofit organization that solicits, col-lects, purchases and stores food and related productsfrom manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and govern-ment agencies and distributes it to community andemergency food programs. The Food Bank For New YorkCity is New York City’s only food bank.

Food Bank For New York City: A food bank that distrib-utes nonperishable foods, fresh produce and other per-ishable goods to its network of 1,200 community foodprograms. The Food Bank 1) offers nutrition and foodsafety education training to its network of food reliefprograms, 2) conducts awareness campaigns to educatethe public about hunger issues, and 3) regularly con-ducts studies and surveys regarding hunger trends andissues in New York City.

Food Insecurity: The term used by the USDA todescribe a person who does not have assured access atall times to enough nutritious food to lead a healthy,active life.

Food Pantry: An emergency food program that distrib-utes food items to individuals and families. Foodpantries typically provide three-to-five day food pack-ages (groceries) for the preparation of nutritionally bal-anced meals and are a key source of emergency food forthe working poor and for people whose food stamp ben-efits run out before month’s end.

Food Security: A term developed by the USDA todescribe someone who has access at all times to enoughfood to lead an active, healthy life. The term includes ata minimum: 1) the ready availability of nutritionallyadequate and safe food, and 2) the assured ability toacquire nutritious and safe food in socially acceptableways (e.g. without relying on emergency food supplies,scavenging, stealing or other coping strategies).

Food Stamp Program: The federal Food Stamp Programserves as the first line of defense against hunger. Itenables low-income families to buy nutritious food withElectronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards. Food stamprecipients are able to buy eligible food items in author-ized retail food stores.

Hunger: There are a number of definitions for hunger,but the ones used in reference to this study include thefollowing: the involuntary lack of access to food for anintermittent or extended period of time; the uneasy orpainful sensation caused by lack of food. Hunger can becaused by external forces that limit someone’s resourcesor ability to obtain sufficient food and may result indetrimental physical and psychological consequences.Many scientists consider hunger to be chronic inade-quate nutritional intake due to low income (people donot have to experience pain to be considered hungryfrom a nutritional perspective).

Kitchen, see “Soup Kitchen”


Malnutrition: A serious health impairment resultingfrom substandard nutrient intake. Malnutrition mayresult from a lack of food, a chronic shortage of keynutrients, or impaired absorption or metabolism associ-ated with chronic conditions or diseases.

Paid Employee: An individual working at an EFP that ispaid wages by the program or agency and is not anunpaid volunteer.

Pantry, see “Food Pantry”

Primary data: University of California Berkeley (2003)states that primary sources, such as original researchdata, are those that are “created during the time periodbeing studied, or were created at a later date by a partic-ipant in the events being studied.” (http://www.lib.berke-

ley.edu/~clee/primarysources.html)

Program, see “Emergency Food Program”

Program Staff, see “Staff”

Prepared Foods: Meals prepared for serving in a restau-rant, cafeteria, etc., or especially at a soup kitchen.

Secondary data: University of California Berkeley (2003)reports that secondary sources (such as academic orpopular books and articles, reference, or text books) areworks, one step removed from an historical event, thatinterpret or analyze. (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/~clee/primarysources.html)

School Meals Programs: The School Meals Programsinclude the National School Lunch, Breakfast, and After-School Snack Programs. These programs are federallyassisted meal programs operating in public and non-profit private schools and residential child care institu-tions. They provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost orfree meals to children each school day.

Soup Kitchen: An emergency food program that servesprepared, nutritious meals to hungry individuals andfamilies. Many soup kitchens also offer meals to thehomebound.

Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,

Infants and Children (WIC): WIC provides supplemen-tal nutritious foods and nutrition counseling to low-income, nutritionally at-risk pregnant women, infantsand children up to the age of five.

Staff: Individuals working at an EFP, either as paidemployees or unpaid volunteers.

Summer Food Service Program: The Summer FoodService Program (SFSP) provides reimbursements toschools, local government agencies and community-based organizations for meals and snacks served to chil-dren during the summer months.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP):

Under TEFAP, commodity foods are made available bythe USDA to states. States provide the food to local agen-cies that are selected, usually food banks, which distrib-ute the food to soup kitchens and food pantries thatdirectly serve the public.

Unpaid Volunteer: An individual working at an EFP thatis not a paid employee.


America’s Second Harvest and Food Research Action Center. (2000). State Government Responses to the Food Assistance Gap: Third Annual Report and 50 State Survey.

America’s Second Harvest. (2001). Hunger in America 2001: National Report.

America’s Second Harvest / Food Bank For New York City. (2001). Hunger in America 2001: The New York City Report.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2004). Employment Rates For Single Mothers Fell Substantially During Recent Period of Labor Market Weakness. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/6-22-04ui.htm.

Citizen Action of New York, Public Policy and Education Fund of New York. (2004). Half-a-Million and One

Broken Promises. Retrieved from www.citizenactionny.org.

Citizen Action of New York. (2004). Fact Sheet. Retrieved from www.citizenactionny.org.

Citizen’s Committee for Children of New York, Inc. (2002). Keeping Track of New York City’s Children: Citizen’s

Committee for Children of New York: The Millennium

Edition 2002.

City of New York Human Resources Administration. (2004). District Resource Statement: Fiscal Years

2003–2004.

Food Bank For New York City. (1996). Who Feeds the

Hungry: Mapping New York City’s Emergency Food

Providers.

Food Bank For New York City. (2000). Who Feeds the Hungry: Mapping New York City’s Emergency Food Providers.

Food Bank For New York City. (2003). Attitudes Towards Hunger in New York City: How New York City residents View Hunger.

New York City Department of Planning. (2004). Table TF3 POV-301: Persons for Whom Poverty Status is

Determined by Ratio of Income in 1999 to Poverty, from U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000. Found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/

census/sf3povp302.pdf.

New York State Department of Education. (2004). Data retrieved from www.nysed.gov/CN/CNMS/htm.

New York State Department of Health. 2003 Estimate of

Unmet Need for New York City. Personal communi-cation on November 24, 2004.

Nord, Mark; Andrews, Margaret; Carlson, Steven. (2002). Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, Number 35: Household Food Security in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

Oliveira, V., Racine, E., Olmsted, J. and Ghelfi, L. M. (2002). The WIC Program: Background, Trends and Issues. Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). American Community Survey. Retrieved from www.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004) Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003.Current Population Reports. Retrieved from www.census.gov.

University of California Berkeley. (2003). Library Resources: Finding Primary Sources. Retrieved from http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/~clee/primarysources.html.

SOURCESSOURCES


Table 1.1

NYC Emergency Food Participant Income by Soup Kitchen (SK)

and Food Pantry (FP) Use, 2004

Annual Income SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Less than $15,000 88.4% 83.9% 85.4%

$15,000-$25,000 10.2% 14.4% 12.9%

$25,000-$50,000 0.6% 1.1% 0.9%

$50,000-$75,000 0.9% 0.6% 0.7%

Total Responding (n) 344 638 982

Table 1.2

NYC Emergency Food Participant Gender by Soup Kitchen (SK)

and Food Pantry (FP) Use, 2004

Gender SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Female 44.2% 62.8% 56.3%

Male 55.8% 37.2% 43.7%


Table 1.3

NYC Emergency Food Participant Age by Soup Kitchen (SK) and

Food Pantry (FP) Use, 2004

Age Range SK FP Total (SK and FP)

18-29 6.1% 4.2% 4.9%

30-49 49.6% 37.1% 41.5%

50-64 27.8% 28.7% 28.4%

65-79 11.6% 24.3% 19.9%

80-94 2.3% 4.7% 3.9%


Table 1.4

NYC Emergency Food Participant Education Level by Soup

Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP) Use, 2004

Highest Education Level SK FP Total (SK and FP)

< Grade twelve 48.7% 45.3% 46.5%

High school diploma 35.6% 38.5% 37.5%

Some college 8.2% 8.8% 8.6%

Associate Degree 3.8% 3.0% 3.3%

(2 year college)

4 year college 2.0% 3.1% 2.8%

Other 0% 0.8% 0.5%


Table 1.5

NYC Emergency Food Participant Racial and Ethnic

Backgrounds by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP) Use,

2004

Race / Ethnicity SK FP Total (SK and FP)

White 10.8% 8.0% 9.0%

Black/African American 55.8% 51.3% 52.9%

Latino/Hispanic 29.1% 36.8% 34.1%

Asian/Indian 1.5% 1.6% 1.5%

Multi-Racial/Other 2.9% 2.4% 2.5%


Table 1.6

NYC Emergency Food Participants’ Report of U.S. or Foreign-

born Status by EFP Type, 2004

SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Born in the U.S. 62.0% 53.0% 56.1%

Born outside U.S. 38.0% 47.0% 43.9%


Table 1.7

NYC Emergency Food Participant Employment Status by Soup


Employment SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Employed 20.3% 17.9% 18.7%

Full-time 5.5% 6.2% 6.0%

Part-time 13.9% 11.2% 12.2%

More than one job 0.9% 0.5% 0.6%

Unemployed 40.0% 25.4% 30.5%

Retired 13.3% 32.1% 25.5%

Disabled 26.1%t 24.6% 25.1%


Table 1.8

NYC Emergency Food Participant Household Age Distribution

by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP) Use, 2004

Household Age Dist. SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Children under 18 32.5% 35.9% 34.8%

Adults 19 — 64 58.3% 50.4% 53.0%

Elders 65 and over 9.2% 13.6% 12.2%


APPENDIX AAPPENDIX A:EMERGENCY FOOD PARTICIPANT DATA


Table 1.9

NYC Emergency Food Participant Government Assistance

Participation by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP) Use,

2004

Governmental Program SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Gov’t Assist. (Total) 59.7% 63.6% 62.2%

Food Stamps 34.8% 28.2% 30.5%

School Meals* 66.4% 68.1% 67.6%

Social Security 11.9% 27.6% 21.5%

Special Supp’l Nutrition

Prog. For Women, Infants

and Children (WIC) 10.7% 5.9% 7.6%

Supp’l Sec. Inc. 17.7% 19.8% 18.2%

Temp. Assist. for

Needy Families (TANF) 12.2% 10.7% 11.3%


*School Meals figures were calculated from the percentage of

participants responding that the question was applicable to

them, e.g., those participants who have school-aged children in

their households.

Table 1.10

Number of Programs Visited by NYC Emergency Food

Participants by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP) Use,

2004

Number of Programs Used SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Visits one program 43.9% 50.5% 48.2%

Visits more than one program

55.3% 49.1% 51.3%


Table 1.11

NYC Emergency Food Participant Duration of Visits by Soup


Duration of Visits SK FP Total

Less than 6 months 34.5% 36.1% 35.5%

6 months to 1 year 16.8% 17.0% 16.9%

1 year to 2 years 15.6% 17.1% 16.6%

More than 2 years 33% 29.8% 30.9%


Table 1.12

NYC Emergency Food Participant Frequency of Visits, 2004

Frequency of Visits SK FP Total (SK and FP)

One time per day 15.5% 4.0% 7.9%

More than one time per day 1.2% 0.6% 0.8%

One time per week 25.6% 29.7% 28.3%

Several times per week 30.2% 19.1% 22.9%

One time per month 6.4% 14.4% 11.7%

Several times per month 13.7% 20.3% 18.0%

Less than one time per month 7.3% 11.9% 10.3%


Table 1.13

Distance between Residence of Emergency Food Participants

and Food Program by Soup Kitchen (SK) and Food Pantry (FP)

Use, 2004

Distance SK FP Total (SK and FP)

Within 10 blocks 68.9% 81.3% 77.0%

Outside of 10 blocks 31.1% 18.8% 23.0%



Table 2.1

Special Food Services Provided by NYC Soup Kitchens (SK) and

Food Pantries (FP), 2000-2004

Food Item 2000 SK 2004 SK 2000 FP 2004 FP

Home-del. foods * 12.3% * 21.0%

Kosher foods 7% 7.0% (+0) 10% 10.8%(+1)

Halal foods 8% 1.2% (-7) 6% 1.4 %(-5)

Services for pers.

w/ HIV/AIDS 24% 13.9% (-10) 23% 10.8% (-12.2)

Other * 20.9 % * 13.0%

Tot. progs. resp. (n) 244 563Note: Increases or decreases are indicated in parentheses after the 2004study figures. % for 2000 responses are estimates based on the 2000 FoodBank study.* Data not available.

APPENDIX BAPPENDIX B:EMERGENCY FOOD PROGRAM DATA


Certain aspects of the study should be noted in interpret-ing the findings and assessing how they are presented.

Participants were interviewed as they were available atany particular site and thus, a self-selection bias is inher-ent in the sample. The program sites were randomlyselected; however, the fact that participants were notrandomly selected decreases the representativeness ofthe sample.

Throughout the interview process, regardless of whethera participant was interviewed at a food pantry or soupkitchen, the structure of the survey was such that allquestions were asked to participants at the individuallevel. Thus, a distinction was not made between individ-uals and households. As a result, household figures werecalculated in order to determine characteristics of par-ticipants at the household level.

Announcements at program sites were made primarilyin English with a limited number in Spanish when aSpanish-speaking interviewer was present. In addition,interviews could only be conducted in English, Spanish,and on a limited basis in Chinese with the help of atranslator.

STUDY LIMITATIONSSTUDY LIMITATIONS


i Food Bank For New York City/Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. (2003). Attitudes Towards Hunger in New York City: How New York City Residents View Hunger.

ii Ibid.iii United States Department of Agriculture, Food and

Nutrition Service. (2003). Trends in Food Stamp Participation Rates: 1999 to 2001, July.

iv This is a conservative estimate based on 2000 U.S. Census data on NYC residents living at or below 125% of the federal poverty line.

v All numbers in this section are by population density, which, in this context means rates of borough popula-tions as opposed to the entire city.

vi People-served data is collected by the Food Bank For New York City from participating programs on a monthly basis. The average monthly reporting rate for the data for CY03 was about 81 percent. The data is submitted by children (0-17), adults (18-64), and elderly (65 and over).

vii Population estimates were based on 2002 American Community Service (ACS) data. Data on soup kitchen and food pantry use were based on internal data collected by the Food Bank for 2003.

viii For this study and per the U.S. Census Bureau, income includes Social Security and public assistance as well as other types of money income and it does not include non-cash items such as Food Stamps and WIC benefits.

ix Based on 2004 HHS Poverty Guidelines, Department of Health and Human Services.

x Participants were asked for their annual income and, therefore, while this is probably representative of the household income (given the large frequency in single households), it cannot be assumed.

xi As further evidence, in 2003, the Food Bank found that one out of four NYC residents (25 percent), or two million people, had difficulty affording to buy food that was needed by them or their family — this is approxi-mately equal to the percentage of people living at or below 125 percent of poverty. Food Bank For New York City/Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. (2003). Attitudes Towards Hunger in New York City: How New York City Residents View Hunger.

xii The conception of “at-risk” includes personal finance, public assistance programs, and emergency food assis-tance; it does not include other forms of support, such as any financial or in-kind support provided by friends and family.

xiii Some graphs are based on data that is included in tables within the appendix of the report located at the back of this document.

xiv Nord, M., et al. (2002). Household Food Security in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 8.

xv Ibid.xvi Data found at New York State Department of Education,

www.nysed.gov/CN/CNMS/htm/.

NOTESNOTESxvii Note that findings for the 2000 study were based on data

collected in 1998.xviii The percentages for the budget breakdown are adjusted

from the reported frequencies so as to add up to 100 percent.

xix Because of differences in the wording of questions in the 2004 and 2000 surveys, the figures for hours of operation are not directly comparable, as the 2000 study only reports on the combined figure for food pantries and soup kitchens.

xx NYC Department of Planning. See Table TF3 POV-301: Person for Whom Poverty Status is Determined by Ratio of Income in 1999 to Poverty, from U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000.

xxi Ibid.xxii Note that at 100 percent of poverty, the potentially at-risk

figure would drop to 1.67 million. However, the Food Bank believes this is an underestimate as a household of three at this level would earn $15,670 or less and evidence collected by the Food Bank during the participant inter-views on income, suggests that at least 15 percent of the participants accessing emergency food assistance at a soup kitchen or a food pantry are earning more than $15,000.

xxiii Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2004). Employ-ment Rates For Single Mothers Fell Substantially During Recent Period of Labor Market Weakness.

xxiv United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2003).

xxv For more information on this program contact The Nutrition Consortium of NYS at www.hungernys.org

xxvi New York State Department of Health. (2003). Estimate of Unmet Need for NYC via personal communication.

xxvii According to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S Department of Agriculture, the average monthly WIC benefit per person in New York is $35.96

xxviii The WIC Program: Background, Trends and Issues by Victor Oliveira, Elizabeth Racine, Jennifer Olmsted, and Linda M. Ghelfi, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 27

xxix Data not yet published. Personal communication with the Nutrition Consortium.

xxx U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003.

xxxi Citizen Action of New York, Public Policy and Education Fund of New York, “Half-a-Million and One Broken Promises, July 2004. Found at http://www.citizenactionny.org/

xxxii Citizen Action of New York, Fact Sheet. Found at http://www.citizenactionny.org/

Hunts Point Co-op Market

355 Food Center Drive • Bronx, NY 10474

TEL: 718-991-4300 • FAX: 718-893-3442

www.foodbanknyc.org

This report was underwritten with the generous support of the New York Community Trust

hunger safety net 2004 - food bank for new york city · 2 • hunger safety net 2004 food bank for...

Documents