the perpetual storm: hunger before and after hurricane sandy

2012 Survey of NYC Food Pantries & Soup Kitchens

2


3

Executive Summary This report is based on three entirely different sets of data. The first set of data are federal food insecurity/hunger statistics collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and analyzed by the Coalition, and is based on three-‐year averages, with the most recent year being 2011. The second set of data, compiled in November 2012, is based on New York City soup kitchen and food pantry responses to a one-‐page questionnaire regarding the direct or indirect impacts of Hurricane Sandy on emergency food programs (EFPs). The third set of data was collected by the Coalition in the fall of 2012, from a survey of over 300 of the city’s soup kitchens and food pantries, requesting information covering the entire year. Federal Food Insecurity Data One in Six New York City Residents – 1.42 Million – Are Food Insecure In 2009-‐2011, an estimated average of 1.42 million, or approximately 17 percent of New Yorkers, was food insecure. That number, which represents one in six New Yorkers, also includes children and seniors over the age of 60. It also represents a 300,000 person increase (27 percent) from 2006 – 2008 when there were approximately 1.12 million food insecure New Yorkers. In comparison, 1.7 million New Yorkers, or one in five, lived below the meager federal poverty line ($18,123 for a family of three) in 2011, compared to 1.6 million in 2010 – an increase of 100,000 New Yorkers.

Borough* # of food insecure (2006-08) # of food insecure (2009-2011) Bronx 354,666 533,825 Brooklyn 257,273 328,294 Manhattan 162,698 229,811 Queens 287,691 321,655

Borough* % of food insecure (2006-08) % of food insecure (2009-2011) Bronx 28.5 40.3 Brooklyn 10.6 12.0 Manhattan 13.8 15.1 Queens 11.0 13.0

One in Four New York City Children – Nearly Half a Million – Are Food Insecure In 2009-‐2011, nearly 474,000 children in New York City lived in food insecure households that did not have an adequate food supply throughout the year. This number represents 25 percent, or one in four, of the city’s child population. It also represents a 31 percent


4

increase from 2006-‐2008, when 363,000, or one in five, New York City children lived in food insecure homes. Borough* # of food insecure kids (2006-08) # of food insecure kids (2009-11) Bronx 136,755 199,004 Brooklyn 91,173 107,895 Manhattan 58,074 71,341 Queens 72,840 93,096 Borough* % of food insecure kids (2006-08) % of food insecure kids (2009-2011) Bronx 35.6 53.9 Brooklyn 14.5 15.4 Manhattan 24.3 30.5 Queens 12.3 17.1 One in Ten New York Seniors (over the age of 60) – Over 160,000 – Are Food Insecure In 2006-‐2008 there were more than 130,000 food insecure seniors over the age of 60 years old. That number increased by 30,000 between 2009-‐2011, bringing the total to 163,183, or 11 percent of the senior population – which is up from 10.2 percent in 2006-‐2008. Borough* # of food insecure seniors (2006-08) # of food insecure seniors (2009-11) Bronx 34,282 45,671 Brooklyn 40,773 53,506 Manhattan 27,875 27,486 Queens 23,709 35,334 Borough* % of food insecure seniors (2006-08) % of food insecure seniors(2009-11) Bronx 20.4 20.8 Brooklyn 9.3 11 Manhattan 11.1 9.7 Queens 6.4 8.1 * Citywide numbers and percentages for food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate food security rates. According to U.S. Census data, Staten Island had a poverty rate of 11.8 percent for years 2009-‐2011; the food insecurity rate is likely similar.


5


6

The Impact of Hurricane Sandy on Emergency Food Providers On November 8, 2012, the Coalition sent out a one-‐page supplemental survey (Appendix 3) EFPs about the impact of Hurricane Sandy on their programs. The survey was comprised of a single page in order to limit the burden on agencies and allow a rapid response. The first round of surveys was sent via email with a link to the questionnaire using the online tool Survey Monkey because the Coalition’s office was inaccessible during this time and it was not possible to send out a mass mailing. However, once Coalition staff members were able to return to the office, follow-‐ups to agencies, especially those in the most impacted areas, were conducted by phone to complete the surveys. Agencies that were directly impacted experienced a number of problems with operating their programs. Over 35 percent of agencies reported food ruined either due to direct wind, water, and/or a loss of power. A large number of agencies, almost 75 percent, were forced to close or limit their hours of operation. Although many were back to pre-‐storm service as of November 16th, some were not.

Agencies Impacted by Hurricane Sandy

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

yes no not sure

Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Survey Data Increased Demand As a result of the increased need in 2012, the food pantries and soup kitchens that responded to our annual survey faced a 5 percent spike in demand in 2012. This further added to surges in need in previous years: 12 percent in 2011, 7 percent in 2010, and 29 percent in 2009.


7

Does your program currently distribute enough food to meet your demand?

Yes - we distribute enough foodto meet our current demand.

No - we don't distribute enoughfood to meet current demand.

Unsure

Cutbacks in Public and Private Funding Has Drastic Impacts on Food Agencies Almost 11 percent of the respondents said they knew of a food pantry, soup kitchen, or brown bag program that shut down or closed for business in the past year. This year, 69 percent of agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food. While some programs may have closed because of staffing or other administrative reasons, decreases in funding for feeding programs were likely the main cause of the closings. In fact, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) which is administered through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was cut by 40 percent last year and has remained at the decreased level throughout the current funding cycle. This source of funding was a tremendous resource for EFPs and its decrease had a drastic impact on their ability to meet the needs of low-‐income and impoverished New Yorkers. Furthermore, approximately 53 percent of the respondents reported a decrease in private funding for food. Even though many of the staff and volunteers at EFPs are low-‐income themselves, 34 percent of EFPs reported their staff or volunteers sometimes use their own personal money to fund their feeding programs.

Clients Using EFP Services Face Barriers to Obtaining Government Assistance One of the factors that forces EFPs to serve such an overwhelming number of people in need are the barriers that prevent people from obtaining government-‐funded nutrition benefits, such as SNAP (formerly known as food stamps). When asked what they believed to be the key barriers their customers/clients face in obtaining benefits such as SNAP, over 75 percent of the EFP respondents claimed that there is a misconception among their clients that they are ineligible for the benefits. Other barriers seen as key reasons for not pursuing SNAP were earning too much money or an immigration status that makes them


8

ineligible, and stigma/pride, garnering 70 percent and 68 percent response rates, respectively. Agencies Want Long-‐Term Skilled Volunteers Every year between October and December, people think of volunteering at food pantries and soup kitchens to feed the hungry during the holidays. This year’s survey of emergency food providers reinforced the Coalition’s emphasis that while volunteerism is necessary, what pantries and kitchens really need are skilled volunteers to help with such tasks as website design, grant writing, and computer assistance throughout the year. A mere 10.3 percent of responding programs need only unskilled volunteers to do things such as serve soup, pack cans, or work in the pantry at some time during the year. On the other hand, 42.7 percent of responding agencies reported needing long-‐term skilled volunteers. Thus, if New Yorkers gave their time and skills to pantries and kitchens year-‐round – and/or aided policy advocacy efforts – emergency food providers would be better able to assist hungry families.


9

A Message from the Coalition’s Executive Director “We’re still struggling.” “We’re still hungry.” “Don’t forget about us.” “We’re still here.” Even before Hurricane Sandy hit New York, that’s the message we heard time and time again from low-income New Yorkers in all five boroughs, as well as from the staff and volunteers of the more than 1,100 food pantries that we represent. These messages reflect the reality of the ongoing struggle in New York City: federal data, calculated for this report, shows that 1.5 million New Yorkers still live in households than can’t afford enough food. Yet economists claimed that the recession officially ended in June 2009. Between 2010 and 2011, the Dow Jones average rose by over 1,000 points. Poverty and hunger slipped out of the headlines. Low-income New Yorkers generally did not see these signs of economic improvement in their own lives. During that same time, median family income in New York City declined from $50,282 annually to $49,461, and more than 100,000 additional New Yorkers slipped below the meager poverty line ($18,530 for a family of three). By 2011, fully 1.7 million New York City residents lived in poverty. That number is larger than the entire population of Philadelphia. The number of New Yorkers living in poverty equals 85 times the capacity of Madison Square Garden or the new Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn. Yet even as New York’s minimum wage is stuck at $7.25 per hour – equaling only about $14,000 for a year of full-time work – prices for rent, child care, health care, transportation, and yes, food, continue to soar. Given the reality of rising costs and stagnating wages, it is no wonder that one in five city residents – and more than one in four of the city’s children – now live in households defined by the federal government as food insecure, unable to afford a consistent supply of sufficient food throughout the year. That’s right, in the richest city in the history of the world, one in four children struggle against hunger, more reminiscent of the struggling in Oliver Twist’s London than of the city experiencing economic recovery portrayed in the news. As a result of the increased need, in 2012, food pantries and soup kitchens that responded to our annual survey faced a 5 percent spike in demand in 2012. This further added to surges in need in previous years: 12 percent in 2011, 7 percent in 2010, and 29 percent in 2009.


10

How did the nation’s elected officials, who earn their living by representing us, respond to the ongoing crisis? To begin with, they cut the main source of federal cash for these agencies – the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program – by a whopping $3.7 million (51 percent less than the level of three years ago), because Congress and the President not only allowed extra funding for the program from the federal recovery bill to expire, but also enacted further cuts in the program. While state funding for pantries and kitchens increased slightly, it did not come close to making up for the federal cuts, and City funding stayed flat. As result, fully 63 percent of the city’s pantries and kitchens lacked enough food to meet the growing demand. Fifty-six percent were forced to ration food by reducing portion size, limiting their hours of operation and/or by turning away hungry New Yorkers. To make matters worse, our elected officials have voted to slash the main source of food for low-income New Yorkers – the Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP). Due to a deal agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and President Obama in 2010, every one of the 1.8 million SNAP recipients in the city will suffer from a reduction in benefits in 2013. On top of those cuts, Democrats in the U.S. Senate proposed an additional $4.5 billion in SNAP cuts. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a true anti-hunger champion, introduced an amendment to prevent the cuts, and she and Senator Schumer voted for the amendment, but that effort failed and the cuts passed the Senate. Worse still, House Republications have proposed cuts at three times that level. To add insult to injury, certain conservative leaders who played key roles in enacting policies that precipitated the nation’s economic collapse were also the loudest voices for slashing food aid even more, forcing low-income Americans to take more of their share of the pain for our national economic crisis. In other words, the very people who sunk our nation’s economic ship wanted to take life preservers away from the drowning. Low-income New Yorkers suffered mightily from this perpetual storm. That was all before Hurricane Sandy. Since then, as the New York City Coalition Against Hunger documents in this report, because low-income New Yorkers lost wages and their children lost access to school meals, the number of people forced to use food pantries and soup kitchens surged. Over 60 percent of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people requesting food. A number of these agencies were destroyed directly by the storm, but many more lost significant food supplies due to power outages. Nearly 70 percent of emergency food programs had to deal with cancelled or late food deliveries. The good news is that government agencies, corporations, religious institutions, foundations, and private citizens all generously contributed money and food after the storm. New Yorkers and Americans all seemed to agree that no one should go without food for as much as a few hours because they faced a natural disaster.


11

This aid needs to continue over the long-term. Of the agencies that reported an increase in the number of people served as a result of the storm, half reported that they would only be able to meet food needs for a short period of time unless more food and funding became available. Moreover, I hope that the feelings of goodwill can be expanded to include the understanding that no one should go without food for years and years at a time, due to human-made disasters like recessions and social service cut-backs. It's time to end the perpetual storm of food insecurity facing a million and a half of our New York City neighbors. We must forcefully reject efforts to further slash vital government programs. We must be clear that the right-wing cuts in food for America’s hungry children, seniors, and working people are both immoral and also create a serious impediment to the nation’s full economic recovery. Here is the reality. Hungry children can’t learn. Hungry adults can’t work. Hungry senior citizens can’t stay independent. Extrapolating from national data produced by the Center for American Progress, the Coalition’s staff has calculated that hunger and food insecurity cost New York City’s economy about $5 billion per year. In contrast, the Coalition has also calculated that we could end the problem entirely by increasing the food purchasing power of food insecure and hungry New Yorkers by about $1 billion per year. If you owned a home that had a hole in its roof that cost you $5 per year in extra heating and cooling costs, but you could fix the problem for $1, wouldn’t you do so? Of course you would. It’s common sense. Likewise, New York City should fix this problem, saving billions of dollars over the long-term. Our elected officials should also use common sense in their decisions on the policies mentioned above. The further good news is that history proves that the domestic hunger problem is eminently solvable. In the United States, we all-but-wiped-out hunger in the 1960’s and 1970’s by ensuring living wage jobs and increasing safety net programs. But we have gone backwards since, and more than 50 million Americans suffer from food insecurity at the same time as other nations, like those in Scandinavia, essentially ended the massive poverty and hunger in their countries by enacting a series of economic and social policies to address them. So what’s the answer? The federal, state, and local governments all must work together to create more jobs, in every neighborhood. Sure, we must create more high-tech, advanced-skills jobs and create the best educational and training system in the world so more New Yorkers are able to obtain those jobs and excel in them. But we will still need significant numbers of workers in jobs that don’t need advanced degrees: people, who clean our offices at night, care for our children, pick and serve our food, etc. We should raise the minimum wage and enact living wage laws to ensure that all of the employees who make New York City successful earn enough to pay their rents and feed their families.


12

In short, hard work must pay off. We must restore “opportunity capitalism” so that those who work hard and play by the rules can build better lives for themselves and their children. We must have broad-based economic growth that not only increases wealth at the top of our society, but also bolsters the middle-class and enables more low-income families to climb into the middle- class. And for those for whom employment is not available – or pays too little – we need an adequate nutrition assistance and anti-poverty safety net that makes robust benefits available, free of stigma and hassle, for those in need. Our society needs to stop treating the bad luck of being poor as a crime. The real crime is that our society allows massive poverty side-by-side with staggering wealth. We know we can do better. We know how we can end the suffering; indeed, the United States has done it before. History proves that we can fight back, and that we can win. But that won’t happen on its own. We need to once again build a grassroots social movement to pressure our political and business leaders to take the concrete steps necessary to solve the problem. As long as hungry New Yorkers still shout “we’re here,” it is our responsibility to work with them to end hunger. Sincerely,

Joel Berg, Executive Director New York City Coalition Against Hunger


13

Report Methodology This report is based on three entirely different sets of data. The first set of data is based on responses from city soup kitchens and food pantries to a one-‐page questionnaire regarding the direct or indirect impacts of Hurricane Sandy on their programs, compiled in November 2012. The second set of data is federal food insecurity/hunger statistics collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and analyzed by the Coalition, and is based on three-‐year averages, with the most recent year being 2011. The third set of data was collected by the Coalition in the fall of 2012, from a survey of over 300 of the city’s soup kitchens and food pantries, requesting information covering the entire year. . Hurricane Sandy Impact Methodology On Sunday, October 28, and the days that followed, neighborhoods in the City of New York and surrounding areas were devastated by Hurricane Sandy. While the media and government agencies warned of the impending wind and surges of water, the result and impact were far greater than anyone predicted. Large areas of the city were flooded, including underground power lines and the area’s transit system. Homes were destroyed beyond repair, cars were irreparably damaged, debilitating power outages occurred, and mass transit came to an abrupt and far-‐reaching halt. Some public housing developments were without electricity, heat, or water for weeks. Dozens lost their lives. A swift call to action was issued to and answered by public, private, and nonprofit organizations to assist with the influx of homeless and hungry New Yorkers. However, some service providers, including soup kitchens and food pantries, were also destroyed or damaged or their ability to assist the already-‐existing food insecure community was hindered while being inundated with hurricane survivors in need of food. On November 8, 2012, the Coalition sent out a one-‐page supplemental survey (Appendix 3) to emergency feeding programs (EFP’s), asking about the impact of Hurricane Sandy on their programs. The survey was only a single page in order to limit the extra burden on agencies and allow a rapid response. The first round of surveys was sent out via email with a link to the survey using the online tool, Survey Monkey, because the Coalition’s office was inaccessible during this time and it was not possible to send out a mass mailing. The first round of responses was small given the fact that EFPs that were directly impacted by the hurricane, those that lost power or were destroyed, were of course unable to access emails or receive phone calls. However, a week later, once the Coalition was able to return to its office, further follow-‐ups to agencies, especially those in the most impacted areas, were conducted by phone, often completing the survey verbally. While the return rate (100 agencies) for the one-‐page supplement survey was not nearly as large as for our broader annual survey conducted pre-‐Sandy (314 agencies), it was


14

impressive given the short notice and limited resources of many service providers after the storm. Moreover, a sample size of 100 out of a total number of agencies of 1,167 is indeed statistically significant. Federal Food Insecurity Data Methodology Data for this section of the report is from an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey. The USDA sponsors the annual survey and the USDA’s Economic Research Service compiles and analyzes the responses. The 2011 food security survey covered 43,770 households nationwide, comprising a representative sample of the U.S. civilian population of 119 million households. The food security survey asked one adult respondent in each household a series of questions about experiences and behaviors that indicate food insecurity, such as being unable to afford balanced meals, cutting the size of meals because of too little money for food, or being hungry because of too little money for food. The food security status of the household was assigned based on the number of food insecure conditions reported. The raw data was collected from thousands of households in New York City, and the weighted responses were calculated by NYCCAH. Because of an inadequate sample size, federal food insecurity data is not statistically significant below the city level; therefore further analysis at the borough-‐by-‐borough level is not possible. According to the USDA, the number of food insecure conditions and behaviors that the household reports, determines the food insecurity status of each interviewed household. Households are classified as being food secure if they report no food insecure conditions or if they report only one or two food insecure conditions. USDA defines “food insecure” as the condition under which: “….at least some time during the year, the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food.” Food insecure households are further classified as having either low food security or very low food security. The very low food security category identifies households in which food intake of one or more members was reduced and eating patterns disrupted because of insufficient money and other resources for food. Low and very low food security differ in the extent and character of the adjustments the household makes to its eating patterns and food intake. Households classified as having low food security have reported multiple indications of food access problems, but typically have reported few, if any, indications of reduced food intake. Those classified as having very low food security have reported multiple indications of reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns due to inadequate resources for food. In most, but not all households with very low food security, the survey respondent reported that he or she was hungry at some time during the year, but did not eat because there was not enough money for food.


15

Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Year-‐Long Survey Data Methodology The 2012 questionnaire (Appendix 2) was originally mailed and e-‐mailed to a list of 1,167 agencies in New York City that were believed to operate food pantries, soup kitchens, and/or some variety of emergency food program (EFP). The Coalition attempted to ensure that the list of EFPs we used for our survey mailing reflected soup kitchens or food pantries no longer in operation, if possible. It is not uncommon for emergency food providers to operate without a connection to the local food bank or without assistance from a government resource stream. To that end, this year’s list of survey recipients was updated after making hundreds of phone calls to our current list of pantries and kitchens to determine which were still in operation. Additionally, we combined EFP lists provided by the food rescue group, City Harvest, and a roster of agencies that receive emergency food funding from New York State and New York City. Following our original request for information, Coalition staff made follow-‐up emails, phone calls, and faxes to the list of survey recipients in order to solicit responses and guarantee a viable sample size on which to base our findings. Agencies were encouraged to either mail or fax the completed survey questionnaire to the Coalition, or to complete it online using Survey Monkey, a web-‐based data collection service. In this sense, sampling was only partly random because agencies with pre-‐existing relationships with the Coalition received more encouragement to complete the survey. This year, not only were we successful at securing a large sample size from the returned surveys, but we also achieved a considerable increase in respondents compared to last year. We believe the increase was attributable to a number of factors. One factor was obtaining a more accurate and up-‐to-‐date list of EFPs in operation. In order to determine the number of closures in the past year, Coalition staff used a number of methods including, but not limited to, cross-‐referencing returned mailed surveys, follow-‐up phone calls, web searches, and site visits. These tactics helped the Coalition determine the sites that did operate previous programs and the sites that once operated programs but were shut down either permanently or temporarily. Another factor in receiving a large number of responses was making our survey questionnaire shorter than last year. We removed certain questions and based on feedback, decreased the amount of archival data we requested in order to determine rates of change. Based on information obtained by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, in a report analyzed by the Food Research and Action Center, SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) lifted over 30 percent of its recipients above the meager federal poverty line. This information prompted the Coalition to add a new question to this year’s EFP survey questionnaire: “Please rank, on a scale of one (1) to five (5), the key barriers your customers/clients face in obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps.” The barriers listed ranged from earning too much money or an immigration status that would render them ineligible to stigma or pride as a hindrance to pursuing the benefit.


16

All mailed, faxed, and hand-‐delivered surveys were entered into the Survey Monkey database by Coalition staff. In total, 314 agencies returned surveys. Agencies that responded to the survey that indicated they did not offer food to the general public, e.g. serving only residents of a transitional housing program, were removed from subsequent analysis, leaving 304 usable surveys. Not all percentages total 100 percent due to rounding and respondents answering “unsure” to various questions, or checking multiple answers. The overall analyzed response rate for this survey was 304 responses out of a list of 1,212, or 25 percent. Finally, because it is impossible to determine how many people served by pantries and kitchens are duplicated by other pantries and kitchens, this report does not determine the total number of people served by the agencies citywide in any given year. Rather, it determines the rate of change between years. Breakdown of Respondent Agency Type:

Type Percent Soup Kitchens 12.0% Food Pantries 65.8% Soup Kitchens

and Food Pantries 22.6%

Other 5.3%

Ratio of Respondents to Total Agencies by Borough

Borough Respondents/ Total Agencies Percent Response

Brooklyn 97 / 357 27.2% Bronx 63 / 250 24.4%

Manhattan 61/308 19.8% Queens 54 / 254 21.3%

Staten Island 11/43 25.6%


17

City-Wide Results Special Post-Sandy Survey Supplemental Questionnaire "A lot of our clients lost food due to loss of power but most of them lost work as much as two weeks - and if they don't work, they don't get paid." - Pedro Rodriguez from La Jornada, Queens Emergency Food Providers Across the City Were Impacted by Hurricane Sandy With only one week to conduct an assessment of the storm on soup kitchens and food pantries across the City, the Coalition disseminated a one-‐page questionnaire to a list of approximately 600 agencies, due to the Coalition’s inability to send out hard copies. The survey was sent via email and 100 EFPs responded. A number of agencies near flood zones and in low-‐lying areas experienced power outages which lead to food spoilage, an inability to perform normal administrative function, and in some cases, were completed destroyed by water damage. Because some agencies directly impacted by the storm were unable to aid their clients fully or at all, this caused an influx of customers and clients from storm-‐ravaged communities to seek help from EFPs throughout the city, not just areas that suffered from direct storm damage. This influx placed non-‐affected service-‐providers in the position of serving customers and clients above and beyond their usual, often overburdened, capacity. Many of the providers not directly impacted by the storm were affected by a region-‐wide gas shortage, which impacted the delivery of food to their agencies. Given that New York City public schools serve an average of 800,000 meals per day, given that schools were closed at least five days, that means that families had to provide 4.5 extra meals that would have been provided that week by schools. Of the 100 responding agencies, 54 percent reported being impacted directly or indirectly by Hurricane Sandy. Agencies that were directly impacted experienced a number of problems with program operation. For example, over 35 percent of agencies reported ruined food either due to direct wind, water, and/or a loss of power. A majority of agencies, nearly 70 percent, dealt with cancelled or late food deliveries. A large number of agencies, almost 75 percent, were forced to close or limit their hours of operation. Although many were back to pre-‐storm service as of November 16th, some were not. Since the storm, over 60 percent of respondents reported an increase in the number of people requesting food, while 30 percent reported no change. Of the agencies that reported an increase in the number of people served as a result of the storm, 50 percent of the respondents reported that they would only be able to meet food needs for a short period of time unless more long-‐term food and funding became available.


18

Change Agencies Experienced in Number of People Requesting Food As a Result of Hurricane Sandy

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00%

Big Increase Moderate Increase Stayed the Same Small Decrease Big Decrease

Agencies Impacted by Hurricane Sandy

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

yes no not sure

How Agencies Were Most Impacted By Hurricane Sandy

0.00%10.00%

20.00%30.00%

40.00%50.00%60.00%

70.00%80.00%

90.00%100.00%

Suffered Power OutagesThat Impacted Regular

Services

Regular Food DeliveriesWere Canceled or Late

Forced to Close or ReduceOperating Hours During

Storm but OperatingNormally Now


19

Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York City One in Six New York City Residents – 1.42 Million – Are Food Insecure* In 2009-‐2011, an estimated average of 1.42 million, or approximately 17 percent of New Yorkers, was food insecure. That number, which represents one in six New Yorkers, also includes children and seniors over the age of 60. This number also represents a 300,000 person increase (27 percent) over 2006 – 2008 when there were approximately 1.12 million food insecure New Yorkers. In comparison, 1.7 million New Yorkers, or one in five, lived below the meager federal poverty line ($18,123 for a family of three) in 2011 compared to 1.6 million in 2010 – an increase of 100,000 New Yorkers.

Borough* # of food insecure (2006-08) # of food insecure (2009-2011) Bronx 354,666 533,825 Brooklyn 257,273 328,294 Manhattan 162,698 229,811 Queens 287,691 321,655

Borough* % of food insecure (2006-08) % of food insecure (2009-2011) Bronx 28.5 40.3 Brooklyn 10.6 12.0 Manhattan 13.8 15.1 Queens 11.0 13.0

One in Four New York City Children – Nearly Half a Million – Are Food Insecure* In 2009-‐2011, nearly 474,000 children in New York City lived in food insecure households that did not have an adequate food supply throughout the year. This number represents 25 percent, or one in four, of the city’s child population and also represents a 31 percent increase from 2006-‐2008, when 363,000, or one in five, New York City children lived in food insecure homes. Borough* # of food insecure kids (2006-08) # of food insecure kids (2009-11) Bronx 136,755 199,004 Brooklyn 91,173 107,895 Manhattan 58,074 71,341 Queens 72,840 93,096 Borough* % of food insecure kids (2006-08) % of food insecure kids (2009-2011) Bronx 35.6 53.9 Brooklyn 14.5 15.4 Manhattan 24.3 30.5 Queens 12.3 17.1


20

One in Ten New York Seniors (over the age of 60) – Over 150,000 – Are Food Insecure* In 2006-‐2008 there were more than 130,000 food insecure seniors over the age of 60 years old. That number increased by 30,000 between 2009-‐2011 bringing the total to 163,183, or 11 percent of the senior population, which is up from 10.2 percent in 2006-‐2008. Borough* # of food insecure seniors (2006-08) # of food insecure seniors (2009-11) Bronx 34,282 45,671 Brooklyn 40,773 53,506 Manhattan 27,875 27,486 Queens 23,709 35,334 Borough* % of food insecure seniors (2006-08) % of food insecure seniors(2009-11) Bronx 20.4 20.8 Brooklyn 9.3 11 Manhattan 11.1 9.7 Queens 6.4 8.1 * *Citywide numbers and percentages for food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate food security rates. According to U.S. Census data, Staten Island had a poverty rate of 11.8 percent for years 2009-‐2011; the food insecurity rate is likely similar.


21

Total Number of Residents in Food Insecure Households by Borough

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens

2006-‐2008

2009-‐2011


22

Percent of Residents in Food Insecure Households By Borough

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens

2006-‐2008

2009-‐2011


23

2012 Citywide Results of the Coalition’s Emergency Food Provider Survey Increased Demand As a result of the increased need in 2012, the food pantries and soup kitchens that responded to our annual survey faced a five percent spike in demand in 2012. This further added to surges in need in previous years: 12 percent in 2011, seven percent in 2010, and 29 percent in 2009. Decreased Food and Funding Equals Decreased Services Almost 11 percent of the respondents said they knew of a food pantry, soup kitchen, or brown bag program that had shut down or closed for business in the past year. This year, 69 percent of agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food. While some programs may have closed because of staffing or other administrative reasons, decreases in funding for feeding programs were likely the main cause of the closings. In fact, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) which is administered through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was cut by 40 percent last year and has remained at the decreased level throughout the current funding cycle. This source of funding was a tremendous resource for EFPs and its decrease had a drastic impact on their ability to meet the needs of low-‐income and impoverished New Yorkers. Furthermore, approximately 53 percent of the respondents reported a decrease in private funding for food. Even though many of the staff and volunteers at EFPs are low-‐income themselves, 34 percent of EFPs reported their staff or volunteers sometimes use their own personal money to fund their feeding programs. It is no wonder then, that 63 percent of agencies surveyed do not distribute enough food to meet current demand, up from 62 percent in 2011 and 51 percent in 2010. Fifty-‐six percent of pantries and kitchens reported having to turn away clients, reduce their portion sizes, or limit their hours of operation in 2012, compared to 58 percent in 2011, 51 percent in 2010, and 55 percent in 2009. However, the rate is still lower than the Coalition found in 2008 (69 percent), before a large increase in food stamps/SNAP offset the city’s increasing hunger. There Was an Increase Among Various Populations Being Served by EFPs The survey questionnaire asked food pantries and soup kitchens if they noticed a change in the types of clients/customers they served over the past year. Over half of the responding EFPs saw an increase in people with paid work. Over three-‐fourths, or 77 percent, saw more families with children, while 60 percent reported serving more immigrants over the past year. There was also a significant increase in the number of seniors being served, nearly 67 percent. Finally, 49 percent of EFPs reported an increase in homeless clients.


24

Clients Using EFP Services Face Barriers to Obtaining Government Assistance One of the factors that forces EFPs to serve such an overwhelming number of people in need are barriers that prevent people from obtaining government-‐funded nutrition benefits, such as SNAP. When asked what they believed to be the key barriers their customers/clients face in obtaining benefits such as SNAP, over 75 percent of the respondents claimed that there is a misconception among their clients that they are ineligible for the benefits. Other barriers seen as key reasons for not pursuing SNAP were 1earning too much money or an immigration status that makes them ineligible, and stigma/pride, garnering 70 percent and 68 percent, respectively.


25

Year-to-Year Comparison

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 % of responding programs that are soup kitchens

only 12.0% 14.0% 13.0% 11.0% 11.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% % of responding programs that are food pantries

only 65.8% 66.0% 64.0% 66.0% 70.0% 65.0% 65.0% 64.0% % of responding programs

that are both soup kitchens and food

pantries 22.6% 23.0% 21.0% 20.0% 17.0% 21.0% 18.0% 21.0% % of responding agencies that don’t have enough food to meet the current

demand 63.2% 62.0% 51.0% 55.0% 67.0% 59.0% 47.0% 37.0%

% of responding agencies at which government money and food

decreased in the past year 68.5% 79.0% 63.0% 50.0% 72.3% 51.0% 40.0% 41.0%

% of agencies at which overall money and food

decreased in the past year 68.2% 74.0% 58.0% 52.0% 71.8% 50.0% 41.0% 41.0%


26

Borough Comparison


27

Agencies who saw overall increase of

people in need

Agencies unable to meet demand due to lack of resources

Agencies who reported not having enough food to meet

growing demand

Agencies who reported decrease in total funding and food sources

Brooklyn 83.9% 45.7% 62.5% 69.5% The Bronx 87.2% 83.3% 80.0% 77.8% Manhattan 79.2% 37.5% 61.8% 61.2% Queens 82.5% 39.1% 69.0% 66.0% Staten Island 75.0% 75.0% 100.0% 90.0%


28

Bronx Results “The number of people coming to the pantry is increasing. We have to turn people away for lack of food to distribute. The Director has often used her own money to help make up for the lack of food. It hurts to turn people away. Some have come to our location after not being able to receive help from other locations. The cuts in funds will make a great impact as more will become unemployed, lose their jobs, and apply for public assistance. There is no balance and the people are in need. We need more resources.” – Odell White, Christ Jesus Baptist Church Food Pantry 80% of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand. 84.1% of responding agencies reported that if they received more food, they would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration, staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food they distribute; 11.4% of responding agencies believed that they would not have the capacity to accommodate an increase in the amount of food they distribute. 87.2% of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people they served over the past year. 61.7% reported a “big” increase. -‐ 18.2%: People with paid work -‐ 48.9%: Families with children -‐ 45.7%: Immigrants -‐ 36.2%: Seniors (age 60 and older) -‐ 34.8%: Homeless 85.1% of responding agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food in the last 12 months; 53.2% reported a “big” decrease 70.5% of responding agencies reported a decrease in private funding for food in the last 12 months; 34.1% reported a “big” decrease. 68.2% of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in 2011. 56% of responding agencies reported using personal money always/often/sometimes to support their feeding programs.

48.9% of responding agencies reported the need for more long-‐term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.); 22.4% of responding agencies reported a need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers (serving meals or packing pantry bags).


29

Brooklyn Results

“The government needs to understand that the funding that is provided for the people should not be cut. The budget is being cut and the services [are] increasing. Please do not cut the budget for the people who receive services from Soup Kitchen and Food Pantry. Thank you.” - Hector Lozada, Las Maravillas Del Exodo 62.5% of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand. 89.7% of responding agencies reported that if they received more food, they would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration, staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food they distribute; 10.3% of responding agencies believed that they would not have the capacity to accommodate an increase in the amount of food they distribute. 67.1% of responding agencies reported that one of the barriers to their customers/clients obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps was that they “earn too much money or have an immigration status that makes them ineligible;” 75.6% of responding agencies reported a mistaken belief among customers/clients about being ineligible as a barrier to obtaining federal benefits. 69.5% of responding agencies reported a decrease in total food and money over the past 12 months; 35.4 reported a “big” decrease. 53.6% of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in 2011. 68.2% of responding agencies reported using personal money always/often/sometimes to support their feeding programs. 42.7% of responding agencies reported the need for more long-‐term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.); 16.9% of responding agencies reported a need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers (serving meals or packing pantry bags).


30

Manhattan Results “With the limited resources and the increase in new clients and their families we are reducing the number of meals in each food bag distributed in the food pantry and the serving of seconds in the soup kitchen. This enables us to provide food to more people in need but forces us to sometimes minimize the amount of food we can provide to each.” – David Hind, GMHC 61.8% of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand. 76% of responding agencies reported that if they received more food, they would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration, staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food they distribute; 8% of responding agencies believed that they would not have the capacity to accommodate an increase in the amount of food they distribute. 79.2% of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people they served over the past year. 35.8% reported a “big” increase. -‐ 33.4%: People with paid work -‐ 64.2%: Families with children -‐ 40%: Immigrants -‐ 51%: Seniors (age 60 and older) -‐ 45.9%: Homeless 64.7% of responding agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food in the last 12 months; 25.5% reported a “big” decrease. 34.7% of responding agencies reported a decrease in private funding for food in the last 12 months; 10.2% reported a “big” decrease. 41.8% of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in 2011. 44.5% of responding agencies reported using personal money always/often/sometimes to support their feeding programs. 26.4% of responding agencies reported the need for more long-‐term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.); 17% of responding agencies reported a need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers (serving meals or packing pantry bags).


31

Queens Results “It's crucial right now that we join together to support federal funding for emergency food and nutrition programs such as TEFAP and SNAP (food stamps). At the same time, emergency food programs don't run themselves. In addition to funding food, we need to find new ways to support the skilled workers [to] help low-income people access benefits, build new skills, keep their apartments, adjust immigration status, and care for their children. Our programs are the front line in the fight against hunger and poverty.” – Lucia Roberts, Little Sisters of the Assumption Family Health Service 69% of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand. 70.4% of responding agencies reported that one of the barriers to their customers/clients obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps was that they “earn too much money or have an immigration status that makes them ineligible;” 61.2% of responding agencies reported stigma/pride as a barrier in obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps. 82.5% of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people they served over the past year. 47.4% reported a “big” increase. -‐ 46.3%: People with paid work -‐ 82.2%: Families with children -‐ 67.9%: Immigrants -‐ 76.4%: Seniors (age 60 and older) -‐ 38.2%: Homeless 66.6% of responding agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food in the last 12 months; 37% reported a “big” decrease. 58.9% of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in 2011. 57.8% of responding agencies reported using personal money always/often/sometimes to support their feeding programs. 35.7% of responding agencies reported the need for more long-‐term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.); 10.7% of responding agencies reported a need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers (serving meals or packing pantry bags).


32

Staten Island Results “Each time we open our food pantry we receive ten to twenty new families. This number will increase to even more in the future. Our politicians refuse to see the danger of hunger.” – Rev. Dr. John Rocco Carlo, Christian Pentecostal Church 100% of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand. 90% of responding agencies reported that one of the barriers to their customers/clients obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps was that they “earn too much money or have an immigration status that makes them ineligible;” 40% of responding agencies reported a fear of being mistreated at city offices as a barrier in obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps. 90% of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people they served over the past year; 50% reported a “big” increase. -‐ 70%: People with paid work -‐ 90%: Families with children -‐ 70%: Immigrants -‐ 70%: Seniors (age 60 and older) -‐ 50%: Homeless 90% of responding agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food in the last 12 months; 30% reported a “big” decrease. 80% of responding agencies reported a decrease in private funding for food in the last 12 months; 42.9% of responding agencies reported a decrease in paid staff. 72.7% of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in 2011. 54.5% of responding agencies reported using personal money always/often/sometimes to support their feeding programs. 60% of responding agencies reported the need for more long-‐term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.); 40% of responding agencies reported a need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers (serving meals or packing pantry bags).


33

Findings on Agency Volunteer Needs

“In terms of volunteers, I would like to find volunteers who can help me in fundraising by assisting me to get in touch with companies, foundations, and high-profile individuals who can donate more food and more money to the food pantry. I would also need help [cleaning] and [organizing] the food pantry.” -Nivia Mendez, Our Lady of Sorrows Food Pantry Every year between October and December, people think of volunteering at food pantries and soup kitchens to feed the hungry during the holidays. This year’s survey of emergency food providers reinforced the Coalition’s emphasis that while volunteerism is necessary, what pantries and kitchens really need are skilled volunteers to help with such tasks as website design, grant writing, and computer assistance throughout the year. A mere 10.3 percent of responding programs need only unskilled volunteers to do things such as serve soup, pack cans, or work in the pantry at some time during the year. On the other hand, 42.7 percent of responding agencies reported needing long-‐term skilled volunteers. Thus, if New Yorkers gave their time and skills to pantries and kitchens year-‐round – and/or aided policy advocacy efforts – emergency food providers would be better able to assist hungry families. Tellingly, 47 percent of the agencies said they did not need any more volunteers at all, thereby bolstering the Coalition’s long-‐held belief that while increasing volunteerism can marginally aid the fight against hunger (and should surely be encouraged), such efforts are wholly inadequate and cannot substitute for national policies that ensure living wage jobs and an adequate government social safety net. In response to this reality, the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, in partnership with ConAgra Foods, has launched a nationwide Ending Hunger Through Citizen Service Initiative to give volunteers better tools to fight the problem year-‐round. The public can access these tools at www.hungervolunteer.org.


34

Appendix 1: Selected Quotes from Survey Respondents Bronx “We are currently serving everyone in and out of the community. We don't turn anyone away. We are struggling to provide food to distribute equally to everyone. Money has greatly decreased. But the demand of people has greatly increased. It's really a shame because we grow food right here in America, but our pantries are still in need. Hopefully in the near future, higher minds will meet and figure something out. Before it's too late, and we become a starving nation.” – April Dunkley, City of Lights Christian Center “Since receiving EFAP funding, we have been able to, more consistently, distribute food and increase the number of bags distributed.” - D. Roberts, WHEDco “Our Food Pantry has helped many families according to the participants. We desire to offer the same service all the year round but we experience shortage of foods as the new fiscal year approaches. We then have to reduce the pantry bag drastically but try not to send anyone away. The pantry is always in very short supply of fruits and vegetables so we would welcome information/referral on how to get more fruits and vegetables as well as bread and bread products.” - Felicia Omeokwe, Vineyard Food Program Brooklyn “Due to the shortage of jobs and the high rents the food pantries are so very important. People cannot make ends meet when it takes two weeks’ salaries to pay their rents.” - Rachel Hodges, Greene Ave. HDFC “The decline in TEFAP funding combined with a far lower supply of donated food at the Food Bank has really taken its toll on our program in the past year. And SNAP outreach, tax prep help and other programs help, but they require skilled volunteers and staffing to coordinate. The lack of operational funding for food pantries, especially for staffing, really limits the quality and quantity of work we can do to relieve food insecurity. No one wants to see people go hungry, but churches alone can only do so much. Can drives are swell, but compared to the need that exists, they are a B Band-aid on a gaping wound. The only way to fight hunger on a systemic level is for the government to be involved. And while the government is involved, it isn't involved enough. We need additional funding for food, especially for healthy food. We also need operational funding. Compared to mental health, housing and other social services, anti-hunger programs receive far less financial support from the government. The resources to operate growing programs like ours are just not available. We're tired and stretched to the limit with the challenge of meeting the hunger needs of the people who come through our doors. Yet, we know that the need is only going to continue.” - Ann Kansfield, Greenpoint Reformed Church “We want to continue this service. Please, help us to serve. Please, help us with more food.” - Jose Bosque, Transfiguration Food Pantry


35

Manhattan “Lack of volunteers is an issue that affects the consistency of our program, especially on Saturday morning.” - Ismael Trinidad, Worldwide Missionary Movement, Inc. “With the limited resources and the increase in new clients and their families, we are reducing the number of meals in each food bag distributed in the food pantry and the serving of seconds in the soup kitchen. This enables us to provide food to more people in need but forces us to sometimes minimize the amount of food we can provide to each.” - David Hind, GMHC “We have seen an increase in the working family and college student populations.” - Tricia Franklin, First Corinthian Baptist Church Food Pantry Queens “It will be nice if more food was donated to TEFAP as the grant money is not enough to buy food for the whole year. We have more than 500 people every week and it takes a lot of food to make bags with enough food for breakfast, lunch and dinner for few days.” - Craig Higgins, Steinway Child and Family Services “I am the only paid staff as the Director/Coordinator. I have been told that if money does not come through donations &/or grants the Food Pantry/Outreach will have to be closed. So right now we are in great need of not only food but grants to help continue serving the poor in our area.” - Sister Christine Cusati, Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of Lourdes “Today, ordinary families with children are having to balance feeding children with buying adequate clothing and paying housing or utility bills. Food pantries help these families provide nutritious meals without breaking into funds earmarked for something else.” - J. Cheryl Epperson, Beth Gospel Tabernacle Staten Island “It has been a hard year for everyone involved in the food pantry program. This includes both the clients and the program. We have not been able to maintain enough food for the required meals distribution. Clients are happy for any help they receive, small or large.” - Madeline Morales, The Salvation Army – Port Richmond Corps “Feeding our hungry is not an easy task. We need our politicians to convince [government] agencies to provide more food to the pantries without the endless paperwork and applications. If we are a food pantry in good standing with agency relations it should not be so difficult to get more food.” - Dorothy Moratta, Our Lady of Good Counsel Church


36

Appendix 2:

2012 Survey of NYC Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens

Please consider completing this survey ONLINE www.nyccah.org/survey. It’s quicker, easier and takes less time than filing paper forms.

If you do not know the answer to any question or part of a question, please check “unsure” or leave blank. Otherwise, return this completed survey by Monday, October 15, 2012 to the person who brought it to you, or mail it to NYCCAH, 50 Broad St, Suite 1520, New York, NY 10004, or fax it to 212.825.0267. Questions? Call us at 212.825.0028, ext. 212.

Section 1: Preferred Contact Information 1.) When was your food program founded? Please specifically note year of your food program founding, not the funding year of house of worship or social service agency in which it is housed. (Please check one)

Before 1980 1981-‐1990 1991-‐2000 2001-‐2010 2011-‐present

2.) What type of food program do you run? (Check ONE) Soup kitchen Food pantry Both soup kitchen & food pantry Other type of emergency food program (explain) _______________________ We have never run a feeding program (if you check this box, we’ll take you off our

list) We previously ran a feeding program and it closed on (date) __________________ 3.) Your name: ____________________________________________ 4.) Your title / role: _________________________________________ 5.) Your food program / agency formal name: ______________________________________ 6.) Where do you serve or distribute food? (If different from your mailing address) Street address: _____________________________________________________ City: _____________________, State: __NY__ Zip: _________________


37

7.) Phone number of agency / program: ( ) - - 8.) Fax Number of agency / program: ( ) ( - ) 9.) Email Address: ____________________________________________________________ 10.) Website Address: _________________________________________________________ 11.) In what borough do you serve or distribute food?

Manhattan Brooklyn Bronx

Queens Staten Island

12.) Is your agency/program mailing address the same or different from where you serve food?

Same Different 13.) If you answered DIFFERENT - what is your agency / program mailing address? Address: __________________________________________________________________ City: _____________________ State: ____ ___ Zip: ________________ Phone: _______________________ Fax: ______________________ 14.) Do you know of any food pantries, soup kitchens, or brown bag programs that shut down or closed their doors in the last year? Yes No If yes, please provide any information on name(s), location(s), and any other contact information on the program(s) if available: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

2012 Survey of Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens

38

Section 2: Program Demand___________________________________________________ 15.) Does your program currently distribute enough food to meet demand? (Check ONE) YES, we distribute enough food to meet our current demand. NO, we don’t distribute enough food to meet our current demand. Unsure

16.) If you answered “No” above, which of the following statements best describes your current situation? (Check ONE) If we received more food, we would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration,

staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food we distribute. Even if we received more food, we would not have enough capacity to increase the amount

of food we distribute. I do not know if we have the capacity to distribute more food.

17.) Please indicate how the number of people you serve has changed in the last year. For each line, check the box that is closest to the correct answer

18.) ALL PROGRAMS: How many people did you serve?

Time period Total September 2011 All of 2011 September 2012 Expected estimate for ALL of 2012, including months that have not yet occurred

19.) Soup Kitchens ONLY: How many meals did you provide? Time period Total September 2011 All of 2011 September 2012 Expected estimate for ALL of 2012, including months that have not yet occurred

In the last year… (Oct 2011 thru Sept 2012)

Greatly decreased

Somewhat decreased

No change

Somewhat increased

Greatly increased

Unsure

Overall number of people needing food

Homeless people People with paid employment

Families with children Senior citizens (age 65+) Immigrants


39

20.) Were you forced to turn people away, reduce the amount of food distributed per person, or limit your hours of operation because you lacked enough resources?

At any time in 2011 Yes No Unsure

At any time in 2012 Yes No Unsure

21.) How do you think the demand for food at your program will change in the next six months? Only check ONE box.

Will greatly increase Will increase somewhat Will stay about the same Will decrease somewhat Will greatly decrease Unsure 22.) Please rank, on a scale of one (1) to five (5), the key barriers your customers/clients face in obtaining federal benefits such as food stamps - (1) Greatest barrier, (2) Partial Barrier, (3) One of many barriers, (4) Not a barrier, (5) Unsure: ____ They earn too much money or have immigration status that makes them ineligible ____ They think they are ineligible, even though they may not be ____ Stigma/Pride ____ Lack of time/long waits at social service offices/long travel times to city offices ____ Fear of being mistreated at city offices ____ City loses/mishandles their paperwork ____ Lack of necessary documentation ____ Other (List) __________________________________ Section 3: Program Resources_________________________________________________

23.) How have your resources changed in LAST YEAR (October 2011 thru September 2012)?

Check the box that is closest to the correct answer for every type of Funding Source Source Greatly

decreased Somewhat decreased

No change

Somewhat increased

Greatly increased

Unsure / Don’t know

Government/Public Funding for Food

Private Funding for Food

TOTAL Funding for Food

Paid staff

Unpaid staff / volunteers


40

24.) Which best describes your need for volunteers? CHECK ONE: We already have enough volunteers for unskilled tasks (serving meals or packing pantry

bags) but NEED MORE LONG-TERM SKILLED VOLUNTEERS for tasks such as accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.

We need BOTH long-term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal

assistance, etc.) AND help serving meals/packing pantry bags. We need volunteers for unskilled tasks like serving meals or packing pantry bags and have

no need for any long-term skilled volunteers. We don’t need any more volunteers at this time. 25.) How often do you or your staff spend personal money on your food program? (Check ONE) Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Unsure / Don’t know

26.) Would you like someone from NYCCAH to contact you about getting more volunteers? Yes No

27.) What is your preferred form of communication from NYCCAH? Email Hard copy/Mail Fax All of the above Section 4: Other Comments___________________________________________________

28.) Talk to us - feel free to attach another sheet of paper if necessary.

Please check here if we have your permission to quote you in our annual

survey report.


42

Appendix 3:

Quick One Page Disaster Response Questionnaire Please take a minute to complete the following questions in order help us give elected officials, private funders, and the media accurate information about your needs. You can either respond online http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3WW3PN7, by e-mail ([email protected]) or by fax 212-825-0267. Please respond by Wednesday, November 14. Food Program/Agency Name _____________________________Borough_________________ Address___________________________________________ Zip _______________Contact Name_________________ Phone Number(s) ____________ E- mail _______________ 1.) Was your soup kitchen or food pantry impacted, either directly or indirectly, by Hurricane Sandy? __ Yes __ No ___ Not Sure 2) If you were impacted by Hurricane Sandy, which of the following occurred? (Check all that apply): __ Power outage that lasted more than one day and/or impacted regular services __ Food ruined due to direct water or wind damage

__ Food ruined due to power loss __ Physical damage to service and/or storage facilities __ Food deliveries canceled or late

__ Forced to close or reduce operating hours, but are mostly back to pre-storm service now __ Forced to close or reduce operating hours and are still unable to provide full pre-storm service __ Other ___________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 3) How has the number of people requesting food changed since the storm? (Check one): ___ Big increase ___ Moderate increase ___ Stayed the same ___ Small decrease ____ Big decrease 4) If your program is now receiving more clients, how has that impacted your ability to serve? (Check one): __ Are able to fully meet food needs now and into the foreseeable future

__ Are able to fully meet food needs now but will be unable to do so in the future unless we receive more food and/or funding __ Are not able to fully meet existing food needs now but would be able to do so if we immediately received more food __ Are not able to meet existing food needs now but, even if more food were available, we would still not be able to serve more because we lack either extra storage space or sufficient staff and volunteers

5) Which best describes your current need for volunteers? (Check one): __ Need only unskilled volunteers for serving food and/or physical labor __ Need only skilled volunteers to provide long-term capacity-building help __ Need both skilled and unskilled volunteers __ Need no new volunteers right now 6) Any other comments? ________________________________________________________________________


43

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, we wish to thank the hundreds of soup kitchens and food pantries that took great care and time to respond to our annual survey. A very special thanks to those, that, within a small window of time, were able to complete the supplemental questionnaire on the effects of Hurricane Sandy on their feeding programs. The Coalition Against Hunger is especially grateful to volunteers who dedicated long hours to helping mail the EFP survey: Latasha Neil Colee Bethany Erica Jenkins Cynthia Davis Flora (Lisa) Williams Joshua** A very special thanks to the Coalition’s AmeriCorps/VISTA team, without whom the follow-‐up to emergency food providers would not have been completed: Alexandra Hoffman Brian Gibbons Charlie Krause Claire Lynch Emily Gargiulo Grace Perry Irene York Lauren Cutright Cisneros Lauren Mendel Tiffany Lopez Yael Bassal

An additional thank you to the entire Coalition staff, especially the entire Benefits Access Department, for assisting with the update of our EFP mailing list and survey outreach, including, but not limited to, the following: James Wengler Terence Kelly Kristian Harrington-‐Colon A special thank you to Lori Azim and Alexandra Yannias for their unwavering support of this annual report. This report would not be possible without the long hours, dedication and commitment of Theresa E. Hassler and Rasna Sethi who are responsible for the report’s compilation, including the gathering and analyzing of survey responses and federal statistics. The New York City Coalition Against Hunger’s Board of Directors: Daniel Ripps Jeffrey Wright, M.D. Christopher G Karagheuzoff, Esq. Peter Ligh, Esq. Melony Samuels, PhD **Last name unavailable

the perpetual storm: hunger before and after hurricane sandy

Documents