SACRAMENTO’S FOOD INSECURE: WHO IS UTILIZING SACRAMENTO’S
FOOD BANK EMERGENCY FOOD SERVICES
Alison Le Meur
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2009
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2011
SACRAMENTO’S FOOD INSECURE: WHO IS UTILIZING SACRAMENTO’S
FOOD BANK EMERGENCY FOOD SERVICES
A Project
by
Alison Le Meur
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Ph.D., M.S.W.
Date
ii
Student: Alison Le Meur
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
, Graduate Coordinator
Robin Kennedy, Ph.D., M.S.S.W.
Date
Division of Social Work
iii
Abstract
of
SACRAMENTO’S FOOD INSECURE: WHO IS UTILIZING SACRAMENTO’S
FOOD BANK EMERGENCY FOOD SERVICES
by
Alison Le Meur
Hunger is related to food restriction such as food availability, affordability, and
accessibility. These are direct causes of food insecurity. Due to these factors many turn to
community services such as food banks. The purpose of this study was to collect
descriptive data that depicts and describes the consumers who use the Sacramento Food
Bank emergency food services. The results of this study highlight the demographics of
the Sacramento Food Bank consumers, reasons for attending the emergency food
services, and their overall satisfaction with the food bank. This researcher recommends
that continued creative and innovative policy development and research take place to
ensure that the injustice of food insecurity stops.
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Ph.D., M.S.W.
____________________________
Date
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to my Nana, Doris “Bunnnie” Bentley, my mother Kris S.
Le Meur and my ever strong and loving father Ralph E. Le Meur.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .....................................................................................3
Statement of the Research Problem .........................................................................5
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................7
Definition of Terms................................................................................................10
Assumptions...........................................................................................................11
Justification ............................................................................................................12
Limitations .............................................................................................................13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................14
Introduction ............................................................................................................14
Food Security .........................................................................................................14
Community Food Security .....................................................................................16
Food Justice ...........................................................................................................22
Emergency Food Programs ....................................................................................26
Stigma and Emergency Food Programs .................................................................43
vi
Summary ................................................................................................................44
3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................45
Design ....................................................................................................................45
Sampling and Recruitment .....................................................................................47
Procedures ..............................................................................................................48
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................49
Analysis..................................................................................................................50
Protection of Human Subjects ...............................................................................50
Summary ................................................................................................................52
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................53
Introduction ............................................................................................................53
Research Purpose ...................................................................................................54
Survey Responses ..................................................................................................54
Summary ................................................................................................................72
5. DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................73
Introduction ............................................................................................................73
Summary ................................................................................................................73
Discussion ..............................................................................................................75
Limitations .............................................................................................................78
Implications............................................................................................................80
Recommendations ..................................................................................................82
vii
Conclusion .............................................................................................................83
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research ...............................................................87
Appendix B. Customer Survey ..........................................................................................89
References ..........................................................................................................................91
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Gender .......................................................................................................55
2.
Table 2 Race ..........................................................................................................56
3.
Table 3 Ethnicity ....................................................................................................57
4.
Table 4 Education Attainment ...............................................................................58
5.
Table 5 Frequency of Use ......................................................................................59
6.
Table 6 Reasons for Coming to the Food Bank .....................................................60
7.
Table 7 Satisfaction and Service by Staff ..............................................................62
8.
Table 8 Satisfaction and Quantity of Food ............................................................63
9.
Table 9 Satisfaction with Facility Layout and Accessibility .................................64
10.
Table 10 Satisfaction with Policies ........................................................................65
11.
Table 11 Satisfaction with Registration Process ....................................................66
12.
Table 12 Overall Satisfaction with the Central and Mobile Food Bank Sites .......67
13.
Table 13 Arrived at Food Bank .............................................................................68
14.
Table 14 Hard Getting to and from ........................................................................69
15.
Table 15 Talk to Staff ............................................................................................70
16.
Table 16 Food Bank Usage Surveyed at Central Site ............................................70
17.
Table 17 Food Bank Usage Survey at Mobile Site ................................................71
18.
Table 18 Usage of Other Services .........................................................................72
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This researcher was inspired to study food insecurity and emergency food
provision and service delivery due to her experience with hunger. Not having any money
or food in the house, a trip to the local food bank was taken. The trip was uncomfortable,
stigmatizing, and humbling as well as a learning experience. The local food bank is in a
low-income diversified community. When one arrives at this location, people driving by
know why you are there. You are required to fill out a small questionnaire asking you to
identify yourself and why you came to the food bank. These brief questions are designed
so a person can be tracked through their database and to make sure no one is taking
advantage of the service. Once you turn in the slip of paper, you are directed through a
piece of thick Plexiglas to wait for your name to be called so you can pick up boxes of
food offered to you. You may give back food; however, you cannot ask for anything
additional. This process was very dehumanizing; it reduced one to a number in the
databank and a hungry face at the pickup window. There is no small talk or basic
politeness; there is a lack of human touch.
People who frequent these institutions are faced with a variety of problems; they
may be factors such as food availability, affordability, and accessibility (Castello,
Desjardins, Kraak, Ladipo, & McCullum, 2005). Because they are food insecure, they
turn to community services such as food banks. They are entered into a databank and
identified by a number. The staff at the food bank may see them and judge them to be the
2
undeserving poor, thus rendering them powerless (Bailey, Claxton, Duffy, & Mohai,
2001; Curtis, 1997). Hunger is a social problem in a gray area that delineates it as a
shadow concern. Emergency food providers can combat this by integrating and
implementing a service delivery model that minimizes this aloofness or coldness, thus
minimizing stigma.
Equality is fundamentally about people having equal access to resources that
promote and facilitate human functioning. Food is a main contributor to human
functioning; it keeps us alive (Laraque-Manty, 2001). Hunger is related to food
restriction, which may be due to socio-political, socio-economic, socio environmental,
and socio-cultural environments. Hunger on any level, whether it is micro or macro, is an
injustice. If resources such as food are denied systematically to some and not others, it is
an injustice. It is unethical and inequitable.
This injustice may stem from asymmetric economic growth, unequal
improvements in daily living conditions, and unequal distribution of resources, thus
suppressing human rights that perpetuate and worsen one’s life. Such suppression is
caused by societal failure. Unequal distribution of resources is a fundamental design flaw
within our deeper social structures and processes. Hunger is a direct violation of a
person’s fundamental right to live a healthy life without unnecessary suffering (Baker &
Friel, 2009). Even though hunger is not usually viewed through the lens of human rights,
when done so it becomes a controversial matter. It becomes a political issue and one that
raises questions regarding equity and justice (Levkoe, 2006).
3
Background of the Problem
Hunger is not a new problem. The social injustice of people going hungry has
been around since the beginning of time. America is a food-rich nation; however, people
are still experiencing food insecurity. In 2008, a study was conducted by the United
States Department of Agriculture, which measured food insecurity in households on a
national level. This report found that more than 50.2 million Americans lived in food
insecure households. Thirty-three million adults, 17.2 million children and of this number
5.6 million households accessed emergency food from a food pantry one or more times.
The study was conducted on a national level. Narrowing further, according to the United
States Department of Agriculture, the state of California has a prevalence of 14.1% of
households who are food insecure (Andrews, Carlson, & Nord, 2009). Similar statistics
can be found locally; in Sacramento the problem of food insecurity is also prevalent.
California Food Policy Advocates conducted a Sacramento County Nutrition and Food
Insecure Profile. They reported that in Sacramento County in 2010 there were 107,000 or
40.1% of adults living in food insecure households (Shimada & Silva, 2010).
One of the ways to curb this human injustice is emergency food. This concept is
largely a product of the 1980s. An emergency food system can consist of soup kitchens,
food pantries, and food banks, which range in size and versatility. Before the 1980s, there
were relatively few emergency food providers; however, due to a recession, there was a
dramatic spike in unemployment and decreasing job security and numbers rose. The
recession and the devastation it caused were also coupled with cutbacks in social
4
spending by the federal government, thus giving rise to numerous emergency food
provisionaries. There is no concrete evidence of just how many food banks were in
existence before the 1980s. According to Janet Poppendieck’s book Sweet Charity?:
Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement (1999), New York alone had perhaps 30
known providers before 1980. There were 487 by 1990, 730 by 1991, and by 1997, in
New York City, there were over 1000 (p. 8). When a 211 operator with access to a
database that contained community resources and referrals was asked how many
emergency food providers there were in Sacramento County, he estimated around 158
(Operator, personal communication, November 13, 2010).
People experiencing food insecurity in Sacramento turn to alternative methods of
acquiring food, such as the Sacramento Food Bank. The Sacramento Food Bank and
Family Services is an institutionalized street food assistance program. The Sacramento
Food Bank has been in operation since 1976, with one central location, Oak Park,
Sacramento. This part of Sacramento houses some of the highest rates of poverty,
unemployment, child abuse and neglect, malnourishment, delinquents, hardship, and loss.
(Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services, 2010) Their model of food distribution
requires the client to travel to the fixed base outlet during the day to receive the
equivalent of a five-day food supply. The process to receive food is grab and go. Because
of the institutionalized setting of the food bank, social interaction with client is minimal,
service delivery is regulated to daytime, weekday hours, and the central location causes
5
problems for people without transportation or those dependent on public transportation
who live on the outskirts of the service area.
Because of these factors, the Sacramento Food Bank initiated a process of
creating a Strategic Plan. In preparation for implementing the plan a Community Needs
Assessment was done. It was a comprehensive evaluation of social service organizations
in the Sacramento Region. The results were compiled and the needs of the community
were categorized, which led to the formation of the mobile food distribution sites. Several
objectives were accomplished by initiating the mobile distribution program. Food
insecure families who had transportation challenges would be able to better access
emergency food. The hours of operation were extended to include after work and
weekends, allowing access to a larger population. The sites are de-institutionalized with a
goal of setting them in an open space, which offer better socialization between the client
and staff. Additionally, the mobile sites are located in food deserts, which can target
larger populations without a local grocery store (Young, 2009).
Statement of the Research Problem
Many emergency food providers have become institutionalized. This means that
many of them are regulated by policies and statutes, thus causing the providers to become
narrow and unwelcoming. The central food bank is a fixed location that leaves gaps in
services in certain geographic areas. Many of the people who may frequent food banks
are at a disadvantage due to time constraints and lack of transportation. There is growing
concern that those who are food insecure in Sacramento are not receiving the best
6
possible services in a way that is welcoming and efficient. Street-level emergency food
providers have tried a variety of ways to deal with unmet community food needs. The
Sacramento Food Bank is moving to phase out the central location and implement mobile
distribution sites only. The goal of the mobile distribution sites is to resolve the issues
clients have voiced regarding the central food bank as well as provide a more dignified
personal service. Mobile distribution sites aim to negate these failures but also to provide
a better socialized type of service delivery. The Sacramento Food Bank has implemented
the mobile distribution sites and is phasing out the central location, to help better serve
their consumers. This descriptive research will be looking into five areas. Sacramento
Food Bank serves a very diverse population, this study will research will describe (a)
who the consumers are who use the emergency food services, (b) why they come to the
food bank, (c) if they are satisfied with the emergency food provisions, (d) if they have
transportation challenges coming to and from the food bank, (e) which site they prefer,
and (f) if they use other services that are provided by the Sacramento Food Bank and
Family Services.
Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to collect quantifiable data gleaned from descriptive
surveys that question who the food bank consumers are, what reasons they came to the
food bank, if they are satisfied with the food bank, if and what transportation challenges
they have, which site do they prefer (i.e., Central or Mobile) and if they have used other
services that are offered such as, cooking demonstrations, health screenings, nutrition
7
education and resource counseling. The practical application of the information collected
during this research will give other street-level food assistance programs an idea of the
types of consumers use emergency food and how to better meet their needs. This research
helps the Sacramento Food Bank as well as other emergency food providers grasp ways
to meet the needs of a diverse set of clients. Data will be collected at both the central and
mobile site location. By comparing the data collected at the mobile sites to the central
location, the researcher will gather data that will hopefully describe and depict the current
Sacramento Food Bank consumers are and whether the emergency food services are
appropriate and successful.
Theoretical Framework
Systems theory originated in the empirical sciences; however, it has been used in
social work, psychology, medicine, and business management. Systems theory can be
used to explore innovation, change, and service delivery. The principals for systems
theory are ripe for exploring social and organizational features. A system can be
distinguished as consisting of two or more parts that give rise to relationships, which can
affect one another over time (Anaf, Drummond, & Sheppard, 2011). This theory is
important to social work because it has a social focus. Through its lens social
connections, relationships, goals, and interdependence can be explored. Systems theory
can provide a general analytical framework for viewing an organization and its many
parts as well as how individuals interact with other people, communities, social
environments, and that particular organization. The strength of this theoretical framework
8
is that it recognizes the environment can affect the organizational structure and function
and how these changes can impact the organization. The founding father of this theory,
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, offered a holistic comprehensive view of organizations.
Bertalanffy’s theory is inclusive; it can encompass, incorporate, and be used in
conjunction with other theories and models, which can easily give an overall picture or
outlook (as cited in Payne, 2005).
Several frameworks of systems exist; rational/natural, closed and open. Rational
systems focus on formal structures, specificity of goals, and formalization of rules, roles
and procedures. The natural systems perspective recognizes that systems have needs and
they are met by the structures put in place by the organization. Achievement of meeting
those needs becomes the common interest in the organization (Millett, 1998). An open
system emphasizes that all parts of the system are interrelated. This is a super system it is
comprised of sub-systems, they become the unifying whole, forming the organizations
unique identity. The internal environment of the system is effected by the external
environments input in turn affecting the overall functioning, the output. The boundaries
in which the input and output pass through are permeable (Millett, 1998). These porous
boundaries allow for feedback loops, which information and energy pass through in a
back and forth fashion. Information that passes through the boundary is used to make
changes within the system, which is called reciprocity.
The super system uses its own energy to keep going (i.e., Entropy); if the system
fails to receive input, then it will run down and eventually cease to exist (Payne, 2005).
9
Organizations can be described as transforming systems, they are dynamic entities that
can be molded and shaped, and, thus, they are not at rest or in a steady state. As
information continues to gather input, the organization will then take the output and
generate new products, services, information, and resources to maintain a steady state.
This means that they will incorporate the changes without losing their unique identity
(Millett, 1998).
Systems theory is the appropriate framework to use for exploring the Sacramento
Food Bank as an organization that consists of super systems, subsystems, and micro
systems. This author studied the interconnections between the organization and the
environment, which was the client system. The interrelationship between the clients’
satisfaction and the food bank was studied. The goal was to use systems theory to explore
whether the Sacramento Food Bank was facilitating customer satisfaction by meeting the
needs of their consumers The Sacramento Food Bank is a learning organization; they
have implemented structural changes to better serve their clients’ needs. Systems theory
is an appropriate framework in which to allow the consumers characteristics to be
studied. The outcome is to see if the Sacramento Food Bank as an organization is meeting
the needs of their consumers. This researcher will gather information on their satisfaction
which in turn will provide information to the Sacramento Food Bank that will indicated if
any systems that are already in place need to be improved upon.
10
Definition of Terms
Community Food Security
“A situation in which all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable,
nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes selfreliance and social justice” (as cited in Castello et al., 2005, p. 278).
Food Banks
According to 7 USCS § 7501 (5) the term food bank means “a public or charitable
institution that maintains an established operation involving the provision of food
or edible commodities, or the products of food or edible commodities”
(Emergency Food Assistance Act, 1988, Title 7).
Food Desert (Note there is little consensus between researchers when it comes to defining
food deserts.)

In Eikenberry, Hendrickson, and Smith (2006), food deserts are defined as “urban
areas with 10 or fewer stores and no stores with more than 20 employees” (p.
372).

Mari Gallageher Research and Consulting Group (2010) states, “Food Deserts are
large geographic areas that have no or distant mainstream grocery stores.” (p. 3).

Hobbiss and Reisig (2000) define food deserts “as areas of relative exclusion
where people experience physical and economic barriers to accessing healthy
food” (p. 138).
11
Food Justice
A movement to incorporate just sustainability and the environment as well by
directly challenging the racism, classism, exploitation, and oppression. It is a
movement that has the potential to bring together a diverse group of activists,
advocates, farmers, and consumers to create a conscientious food system (Levkoe,
2006).
Food Security
As defined by the United States Department of Agriculture: all people at all times
have enough food for an active and productive healthy life, which is necessary for
all people to be healthy and well nourished (U.S. Department of Agriculture
[USDA], 2009c).
Mobile Food Distribution Service Delivery
An emergency food distribution model that goes to communities that have
transportation challenges, therefore accessing larger populations, with the goal of
providing a more dignified open air service. This can be done by instituting
collaboration between community service providers such as churches and the food
bank, this way optimizing service hours and locations.
Assumptions
This author assumes that the research conducted at the Sacramento Food Bank
regarding consumers and satisfaction will describe:

who the consumers are
12

what their reason is for coming to the food bank

if they have any transportation challenges arriving to and leaving from the food
bank

what their satisfaction if and what their preference is concerning the different
service delivery model (i.e., Central or Mobile)

show that clients have more contact with staff, reducing stigmatization at the
mobile site
Justification
As the economy worsens and the demand for social services increases, the amount
of people requesting services will rise. Many social services agencies will be bogged
down with the demands of the growing client population. One way to combat this
stagnation is to think creatively and innovatively. The Sacramento Food Bank is a social
service emergency food provider that has implemented a type of service delivery that is
both innovative and creative. Mobile Food distribution sites are designed to target clients
who are unable to visit the central location. This style of service delivery is creatively
developed as a response that will provide a lasting solution to the problems of food
insecurity at the community level.
This research is important because it provides an example, model, and framework
for other community-based emergency providers with a way to target clients and
communities that may be unable to access a centralized location. Moreover, this style of
service delivery is designed to serve clients who have limited access to transportation, to
13
fill in food desert gaps, and to lessen the stigmatization clients may feel when receiving
these types of services. For those involved in macro work and program service delivery,
this research will be invaluable because mobile distribution sites are a response to
changing economic times and the growing demands of the underserved communities.
Social work is a profession that prides itself on innovation and creatively. This research is
aligned with those principals.
Limitations
The research conducted in this study focused only on the Sacramento Food Bank.
Other emergency food providers were not studied. The research collects data from both
the mobile food distribution site and the central location. Other objectives outlined in the
strategic plan were not looked at only the objectives linked to the mobile distribution
sites. This is to give an accurate description of who the consumers are and their
satisfaction with the individual site. Other programs the Sacramento Food Bank are not
discussed; the concentration will be customer/client satisfaction with the emergency food
services. This study may not be generalizable to food providers who are not-for-profit,
faith-based, or those for which mobile delivery service is not an option.
14
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In this review of literature there are several headings and subheadings. This
author presents relevant information concerning food insecurity. Topics discussed include
food security, community food security and legislation directed toward combating food
insecurity. Also discussed is the concept of food justice, what a food desert is and how it
can affect the people who live in communities that have been designated such. Also there
is an exploration on two federal programs that aim to curb food insecurity; they are
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as well as The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP). In this section there is a discussion on a new piece of
legislation AB 152 that establishes an emergency food provision system in the state of
California. This is followed by a brief discussion on local private emergency food
programs. Finally, there is an exploration on the stigma that may be associated with
receiving emergency food from street level providers.
Food Security
In 2008, the USDA used supplement data collected from the Current Population
Survey (CPS). This survey included national and state level statistics on food security,
and the data was used in the USDA’s annual report on household food security. Data
from 44,000 households was correlated to obtain a representative picture of state and
15
national levels of food security/insecurity. These statistics were collected from questions
asking about the difficulty of meeting basic food needs (USDA, 2008).
The data from 44,000 households was correlated to obtain a representative picture
of state and national levels of food security/insecurity. These statistics were collected
from questions asking about the difficulty of meeting basic food needs. Statistics showed
that a total of 14.6% or 17 million households were food insecure. The study revealed
that 42.2% of households residing near or below the federal poverty line had substantially
higher incidence of food insecurity. Conditions and trends highlighted by this study
showed households with children headed by single mothers and fathers, as well as Black
and Hispanic households had the highest prevalence of food insecurity. This study also
brought to light that a majority of the food insecurity was located in large urban centers
as well as rural areas (Andrews et al., 2009). This report highlighted the devastating fact
that a large majority of Americans are food insecure.
Food security as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture states
that all people at all times have enough food for an active and productive healthy life,
which is necessary for all people to be healthy and well nourished (USDA, 2009c).
Viewing hunger through the lens of equality means everyone regardless of educational
attainment, wealth accumulation, color of skin, or culture should have equal access to
food resources and food in general. Food is a primary commodity essential to human
functioning. If people are to go without nutritious, affordable food, they are being denied
a human right. Hunger is an unnecessary suffering, which is morally uncomfortable and
16
wrong. Hunger is a kind of inequality and inequalities are politically suspect (LaraqueManty, 2001).
Equality is fundamentally about people have equal access to resources that
promote and facilitate human functioning. Food is a main contributor to human
functioning; it keeps us alive (Laraque-Manty, 2001). Hunger is related to food
restriction, possibly be due to socio political, socio economic, socio environmental and
socio cultural environments. Hunger on any level, whether it is micro or macro, is an
injustice. If resources such as food are systematically denied to some and not others, it is
an injustice, is unethical, and inequitable. This issue may stem from asymmetric
economic growth, unequal improvements in daily living conditions, and unequal
distribution of resources, suppressing human rights, which then perpetuate and worsen
one’s life caused by societal failure. Unequal distribution of resources is a fundamental
design flaw within our deeper social structures and processes. Hunger is a direct violation
of a person’s fundamental rights, to live a healthy life without unnecessary suffering
(Baker & Friel, 2009). Even though hunger is not usually viewed through the lens of
human rights, when done so it becomes a controversial matter. It becomes political and
one that raises questions regarding equity and justice (Levkoe, 2006).
Community Food Security
Community food security is a relatively new concept that stems from a variety of
disciplines, such as community nutrition and education, public health, sustainable
agriculture, and community development. Because it is a multi-model concept and
17
relatively new, there is no universally accepted definition (Kantor, 2001). However, one
widely accepted and used definition of community food security is: “A situation in which
all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet
through a sustainable food system that maximizes self-reliance and social justice” (as
cited in Castello et al., 2005, p. 278).
Community food security promotes a more inclusive agenda advocating a broader
based view of food security. Instead of focusing on an individual’s security, the
community-based perspective focuses on prevention and remediation, not short-term
intervention (Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996). Community food security is a framework that can
bring together local economics, food production, healthy eating, food accessibility, and
community development. Its focus is on the underlying social, economic, institutional,
and political frameworks that can affect the affordability, quantity, and quality of food in
a community. This community-based prevention framework is one that seeks to find,
develop, and institute food resources that accommodate both community and individuals
in a “just sustainable” way, meaning the food meets adequacy and acceptability.
Community food security is a framework that looks to resolve the issues of food
insecurity for “community residents by obtaining a safe, culturally acceptable,
nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes self reliance
and social justice” (Castello et al., 2005). Resolution is done by understanding the
complex interactive relationships among communities, resources, and social and physical
environments. Understanding the relationships involves the exploration of broad systemic
18
issues affecting food availability, affordability, accessibility, and quality (Castello et al.,
2005). Community food security (CFS) encompasses a variety of concepts, including, but
not limited to, income; transportation; food prices; nutritious and culturally appropriate
food choices; and existence of and access to adequate, local, non-emergency food sources
(Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996).
There are six guiding principles incorporated into community food security
providing an effective framework to combat food insecurity. They are as follows:
(a) to sustain health and reduce hunger, thus meeting of the needs of low-income
persons;
(b) by addressing the inequality that stems from the inadequate distribution of
resources and incorporating broad goals, food associated challenges (i.e., food
system improvement) will help fight food insecurity;
(c) a focus that demands goal-driven food resource development that will provide
long-term sustainable help to people, curtailing their unmet needs for food.
Examples range from farmers markets to community gardens;
(d) develop sustainable communities, which encourage self-empowerment and
self-reliance;
(e) a local agricultural focus for providing the foundation to sustain community
food security; and
19
(f) the incorporation of a diverse set of agencies spanning from local government
to non-profits and community members to build a strong governing base for
the projects listed above (Fisher, Forster, Gottlieb, & Winne, 2003).
As this more equitable and encompassing framework took hold, there was an
emergence of new polices. One such policy, the Community Food Security Act (H.R.
2003), is a direct and strategic entry point for establishing a connection between food
security, social justice, and the environment (Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996). H.R. 2003
Community Food Security Act is a congressional bill adopted in 1995. In summary, the
bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make temporary funding available to
support community projects “designed to meet the food needs of low income people,
increase self reliance of community in providing for their own needs, and promote
comprehensive, inclusive, and future oriented solutions to local food, farm and nutrition
problems” (U.S. Congress, 1995, para. 1).
The policy was directed at attacking food security issues; it was a platform on
which to combat community food insecurity. The policy looked to facilitate equal access
to fresh food, especially in disproportionately low-income ethnically diverse
communities. Community development sought to promote economic growth by
encouraging transportation projects, food processing ventures, and other community
growth and empowerment enterprises (Fisher et al., 2003; Gottlieb & Fisher, 1996).
The Community Food Security Act (1995) gave way to other policies with similar
goals such as The Community Food Projects Legislation (CFP), which helped spur
20
projects such as community gardens, farmers markets in low-income areas, as well as
built self-efficiency in food insecure populations. They are aimed at promoting programs
and advocacy that use community empowerment to gain food security. The ultimate
goals of using direct marketing strategies mentioned are to encourage community-based
prevention oriented toward achieving and sustaining community food security (Gottlieb
& Fisher, 1996).
Community Food Projects Legislation (CFP) is a federal program that offers
money in the form of grants to non-profits who wish to work on issues pertaining to
community food security. These one-time grants are designed to be matched by the
nonprofit dollar-for-dollar with the intention of infusing them with funds to establish and
carry out community food projects. Eligible non-profits are to design programs that
promote self-sufficiency and food security in low-income communities. Moreover, the
programs are to be designed in such a way that low-income consumers have increased
access to fresher more nutritious food. They are also supposed to be designed to promote
an overreaching comprehensive plan to address local farm, nutrition issues, and
infrastructure improvement. The applicable programs must be designed to attain longterm solutions using creative, innovative marketing strategies that benefit local
agriculture production and low-income consumers (USDA, 2009b)
Another policy was the USDA’s 1999 Community Food Security Initiative (as
cited in Fisher et al., 2003), important because it was the first time food security became
an agency goal. The goal was to link objectives such as anti-hunger programs, small farm
21
support, and integrated community food security with prevention-orientated strategies. In
2000, the Farmers Market Nutrition Program for Seniors was initiated. The program
provided greater access to healthy food options for seniors by providing vouchers to be
spent at the local farmers markets, which led to new market opportunities for family
farmers (Fisher et al., 2003).
The Community Food Security Initiative (CFSI) (USDA, 2010a) seeks to cut
hunger in half by the year 2015. This will be accomplished by building and sustaining
local food systems. It will require activating a grassroots network of states, cities,
nonprofits, and for-profit groups that will use innovative and creative best practices that
catalyze on community commitments. This can be done by increasing economic and job
security, strengthening and promoting efficient use of federal food programs such as
Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, and The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP). Moreover, CFSI seeks to support local efforts of nonprofit groups by
aiding in food recovery, food gleaning, and donation programs as well as fixing and
maintaining local food systems. Another essential piece of the initiative is to critically
educate the public about food security (USDA, 2010a). Both of these innovative policies,
CFP and CFSI try to combat the persistent hunger felt by disadvantaged communities as
well as address poor access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Some activists, food advocates,
and others may place these policies and innovative ideas under the Food Justice umbrella.
22
Food Justice
Food Justice is a concept that helps bridge the gap between equity,
institutionalized racism, sustainable agriculture, and food security. It looks to incorporate
just sustainability, the physical environment, as well as challenge racism, classism,
exploitation, and oppression. This concept provides a theoretical bridge that helps close
the gap between people obtaining access to safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate
food produced in an environmentally sound way as well as promoting human dignity and
self sufficiency (Levkoe, 2006). “The food justice concept contextualizes disparate access
to healthy food within a broader…framework of institutional racism…it focus[es] on
racialized access to…healthy food, [it] can link sustainable agriculture to environmental
justice theory and practice” (Alkon & Noorgaard, 2009, p. 292). This movement aims to
combat Food Deserts, which is defined differently by a variety of researchers.
Food Desert
A food desert has been defined using a variety of indicators, such as; consumer
food choices and options (Diamant et al., 2005; Eikenberry et al., 2006); specific
characteristics of location and types of food stores according to neighborhoods (Diez
Rouz & Moore, 2006); dietary caloric and nutrient intake (Diez Roux, Morland, & Wing,
2002); measurement of healthy nutrition environments (Glanz, Sallis, Saelens, & Frank,
2007); and produce quality and community store availability (Block & Kouba, 2006).
The above indicators used in definitions have been the focus of extensive research on
food deserts.
23
Eikenberry et al. (2006) found that in both rural and urban food deserts, food
prices were higher and the food available was of poorer quality than in non-deserts.
Diamant et al. (2005) found that fewer healthy food options were available in poor
communities either in the context of supermarkets or restaurants and that this proved to
be challenging for eating healthy. Diez Roux and Moore (2006) discovered that poorer
areas were more likely have liquor stores than natural foods market, specialty stores, or
fruit and vegetable markets than more well off areas. Diez Roux et al. (2002) uncovered
that the neighborhoods in which Whites and Blacks resided together had five times fewer
supermarkets than all White communities. The Glanz et al. (2007) study concluded that
poor neighborhoods had less healthy food options than affluent neighborhoods due to the
prevalence of convenience stores as food buying options. When studying food deserts,
Block and Kouba (2006) found that once again predominately Black neighborhoods were
more likely to have grocery stores than supermarkets and had poorer quality of foods.
Food deserts are a major problem low-income and ethnically diverse communities deal
with on a daily basis. The above studies testify to how un-equal, oppressive, socially
unjust, unhealthy, and unsustainable our food system is to people who are
disproportionately poor.
Gaps in Current System
The current food system is fragmented and broken. There are gaps in the food
system (i.e., food deserts exist), which have caused malnutrition, obesity, higher costs,
less accessibility, and poorer quality of fruits and vegetables. Healthy foods are missing
24
from low-income, ethnically diverse neighborhoods due to the absence of grocery stores
and supermarkets. Rose (2010) states, “purchasing power…is not just a function of
household income. The neighborhood food environment…is also an underlying
determinant of access…it affects the cost of purchasing an adequate diet. In
neighborhoods without supermarkets, residents…face higher prices for…healthy foods.
What one can find in these urban inner cities is the over abundance of liquor and corner
stores. Such stores usually carry high caloric, non-nutritional foods filled with
preservatives and sugars, which have caused a variety of health disparities. The people
who reside in food deserts are more likely to have difficulty access fresh produce which
menas they consume less and are more likely to be overweight than others. (Rose, 2010;
Bao, Chaloupka, Mirtcheva, Powell, & Slater, 2006) The absence of healthy foods in
low-income urban inner cities is denying the residents of these communities a
fundamental human right, equal access to healthy nutritional food. Furey, Mcliveen, and
Strugnell (2001) discovered people were more likely to make food choices based on the
choices available in their immediate surroundings. If one is only able to find convenience
stores or liquor stores, their choices are limited to unhealthy foods. According to
Drewnowski and Specter (as cited in Burke, Keane, & Walker, 2010), energy-dense
foods that contain high amounts of refined grains, high sugar content and fats dominate
low-income diets. This is the exact opposite of a “healthy diet” being one that emphasizes
fruits and vegetables, whole grains and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, and
one that is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars
25
recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA, Dietary Guidelines for
Americans). However, this guideline is problematic for people of low income. It has been
found in numerous studies that fresh produce and healthy eating is associated with higher
cost, which deters low-income persons from buying such products (Anderson, Cox, Lean,
& Mela, 1998; Beerman, Dittus, & Hillers, 1995; Burke et al., 2010; Eikenberry et al.,
2006; Haynes, Randall, & Reicks, 1994).
Healthy foods are missing from low income, ethnically diverse neighborhoods
due to the absence of grocery stores and supermarkets (Glanz et al., 2007). What one can
find in these urban inner cities is the over abundance of liquor and corner stores. In a
study that used census data from 9,361 urban zip codes, found that African Americans
face higher densities of liquor stores than Caucasians. The location of liquor stores was
also found to correlate with African Americans living in lower income areas (Cohen,
Ringel, Romely, & Strum, 2007; Diex Roux et al., 2002). Diex Roux and Moore (2006)
also found that low-income predominately African American neighborhoods have fewer
numbers of supermarkets but significantly more convenience stores (as cited in Boa,
Chaloupka, Mirtcheva, Powell, & Slater, 2006).
The absence of supermarkets has been shown to correlate with both income and
race (Boa et al., 2006; Moore et al., 2006). Boa et al. (2006) gave several suggestions of
how to remedy food deserts such as improving economic and land use polices, including
but not limited to development, zoning, commercial loans, addressing inadequate public
transportation focusing on affordability and routes, encouraging community collaboration
26
that addresses development of effective crime and safety polices, and ordinances that
affect the local retail environment, and an ongoing commitment to implement policies
that address systemic barriers contributing to racial and wealth segregation. Burke et al.
(2010) mentioned that policymakers and stakeholders need to begin concentrating on
food-related policies and practices that address the limited access by low-income
residents to affordable, healthy foods. Another remedy discussed in their article is that
collaboration between local leadership, public and private organizations need to be
developed to build and maintain an infrastructure and necessary facilities that can address
food disparities in low-income communities. Block and Kouba (2005) discuss that the
issue to the lack of healthy nutritious food does not only need to be fixed by addressing
policy issues but the community food system. This can be facilitated by activating local
food proponents who can establish a local wholesale network to minimize barriers to
obtain produce.
Emergency Food Programs
Emergency food programs originate from a variety of sources, such as the federal
government as well as private nonprofit, private for-profit and faith-based organizations.
Government programs such as food stamps and emergency food assistance have shared
responsibility with both state and federal governments working in tandem to make sure
the programs run smooth and are meeting the needs of citizens and communities. Private
nonprofits and for-profits, as well as faith-based organizations, are usually concentrated
more on the micro level of communities; they look to remedy the immediate issue of food
27
insecurity. Emergency food programs, whether they are housed on the macro or micro
level, all look to provide stop gaps to address and remedy the problem called food
insecurity.
Federal Emergency Food Programs: SNAP and TEFAP
To assist people who are food insecure the United States Department of
Agriculture operates two food assistance programs. One is the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) also known as the Food Stamp Program. The other is the
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). According to the California Association
of Food Banks (CAFB; 2010), “nearly 20% of Californians (over 7 million) report that
they are unable to afford the food they need…this is a 30-50 percent increase of people in
need since 1980.” However other emergency food programs are reporting a 100%
increase in the past year. (p. 1). Sacramento is no different from any other city; it also has
food insecure families and individuals. Perhaps it is due to government responses or their
non-response to hunger. Most of the time this injustice is handled as an emergency,
which means the provision of temporary services will be granted. This strategy is meant
to have a limited life but has now become institutionalized and reinforces the view that it
is a permanent solution. Thus, it hinders efforts to address the real issues of why people
go hungry such as poverty (Curtis, 1997). Second Harvest (currently known as Feeding
America) produced a study in 1998 that stated cutbacks in government welfare and the
food stamp program, along with low-wage employment, rising medical costs, childcare
28
expenses have contributed to the increase in food insecurity (Biggerstaff, Morris, &
Nichos-Casebolt, 2002).
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was built on the
foundation of the 1939 Food Stamp Plan. This program was designed to assist needy
families in the Depression era, which was eventually terminated in 1943. In 1964, during
John F. Kennedy’s presidency, a pilot food stamp program was implemented and the
Food Stamp Act was passed (Karger & Stoesz, 2006). In 1974, there was a huge
expansion of the program due to Congress requiring all States to offer food stamps to
low-income households. The food stamp program is designed to alleviate hunger and
malnourishment and increase the food purchasing power in low-income and under
employed or unemployed people (Biggerstaff et al., 2002).
The USDA and the Office of Research and Analysis found, in a recent study, that
on average 41 million individuals were eligible for SNAP benefits each month in 2008,
and only 27 million received them. There was a national increase of 1% of people using
SNAP benefits between 2007 and 2008. The reasons listed in the study were due to the
increase in unemployed people and people in poverty. Groups that increased participation
the most were the elderly, individuals with no cash income, and individuals qualifying for
maximum benefits (Leftin, 2010).
Since the inception of the SNAP program, the number of household that use this
benefit has steadily risen. In 1970, it serviced 4.3 million people a month; in 1980, 21.1
million people were being serviced; in 2000, 17.2 million; in 2009, 31 million people per
29
month used SNAP benefits. The number of people using SNAP benefits fluctuates with
the economy and the pattern of poverty in America. As the number of persons in poverty
increased, so did the numbers using this benefit. This is also true for the inverse; as more
people rose out of poverty, fewer people used SNAP (USDA, 2010c).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers SNAP at the federal level
through the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). At the state and local level, state agencies
oversee the program, including the determination of eligibility, allotments, and
distribution of benefits. Those who want SNAP benefits must meet eligibility
requirements and provide verification about their households. To participate in SNAP,
households must calculate many categories of qualifiers that include gross monthly
income, age of household members, and able-bodied members, but home and property
are not counted. Finally all household members must provide proof of a Social Security
number or be in the application process to obtain one (USDA, 2010c). This verification
of the applicant’s eligibility is done in an interview; if the applicant is granted SNAP
benefits then an allotment is determined.
Eligible households are issued a monthly allotment of SNAP benefits based on the
Thrifty Food Plan, a low cost diet. This plan is based on the National Academy of
Sciences’ Recommended Dietary Allowanced, and on food choices of low-income
households. This food plan and/or food budget, according to Curtis (1997), is
nutritionally inadequate and designed for short-term emergency use only. Research has
also shown that people and/or families who use SNAP usually run out of benefits before
30
the end of the month, causing the need to use emergency food assistance (Curtis, 1997).
Chernesky, Clark, Taren, and Quirk (1990) interviewed low-income families living in
Hillsborough County, Florida who used food stamps found that, about half of the sample
also used food panties due to running out of stamps at the end of the month (as cited in
Bailey et al., 2001). The SNAP benefits allotted to a household are less than 30% of the
household’s income. If the household has no income then they are granted the full
amount of benefits, which is $668 per month for the year 2010 for a household of four
(USDA, 2010c). The benefits granted can be used to buy, breads, cereals, fruits,
vegetables, meats, fish, poultry, and dairy products. In the community, one can observe
that mainstream restaurants, such as Papa Murphy’s Pizza, are also taking SNAP. Items
that cannot be bought with SNAP benefits are alcohol, tobacco, non-food items, vitamins,
medicines, and hot foods. The SNAP program is a staple of the USDA and the Federal
government, designed to assist households with obtaining a healthy nutritious diet;
however, as seen above, not everyone is eligible to obtain these benefits.
According to Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) (2008), there are several
documented barriers to why people do not use SNAP. In their review of literature, Access
and Access Barriers to Getting Food Stamps they listed several reasons why people are
reluctant to use this program. They are as follows: long application process that has
several steps, extensive verification requirements, limited options as to where, when, and
how to submit the convoluted applications. The demand for in-person interviews does not
take into consideration the participant’s time, transportation, or job circumstances. There
31
is a perceived stigma associated with the receivership of public benefits that can cause a
reluctance to sign up. Requirements of the SNAP program are that the participant must
make frequent reports on income and household membership, as well as recertification.
Due to the diversity within the United States, another barrier to access is language
spoken, perhaps the language used by the applicant is different from the SNAP worker.
Immigrants in need of food may fear that applying for SNAP may impact their legal
status. Finally, finger imaging requirements deter many needy potential applicants due to
past criminal activity.
Another federally administered program is The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP) a program similar to the SNAP program in that it is designed to
supplement the diets of low-come individuals. However, instead of providing them with
grocery monies, it supplies them with emergency food. This program was first initiated to
distribute surplus commodities in 1981, called Emergency Food Assistance Program
(EFAP) (Karger & Stoesz, 2006). It was designed to be a temporary measure in 1981 to
supply surplus cheese to individuals; however, by 1983 it expanded and was renamed
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). This program was also
designed to be short term, six months (Biggerstaff et al., 2002). However, in 1988 the
Hunger Prevention Act required that the USDA purchase additional commodities for
low-income individuals and local emergency food programs (EFP) (Karger & Stoesz,
2006). This federally funded temporary program continued to grow and expand until it
became a staple of Federal programs that aim to curb hunger in the United States.
32
In 2009, Congress allotted $299.5 million for food and administrative costs. It
was a $60 million increase from the year 2008. With the passing of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress allocated an additional $125 million to
TEFAP (USDA, 2010b). The amount of commodities available to the EFPs is determined
based on the number of unemployed persons and the number of people with incomes
below the poverty level in each individual state. Once the states receive the commodities,
they are then distributed to local agencies such as food banks. The food is then distributed
to eligible recipients. This program also gives administrative funds to EFPs for storage
and distribution (USDA, 2010b).
California Food Programs
California is a state without a government-directed emergency food assistance
program. The majority of local social service agencies who provide resources to lowincome individuals are faced with the dilemma of wanting to help struggling people but
cannot due to underfunding. It is just one major impact of the recession; the other is that
there has been an increase in the number of people seeking help from social service
agencies, services that pertain to emergency food as well as other assistance. Because of
the economic downturn and less funding, many social services agencies are closing their
doors. This has been seen in both California and Illinois, which have massive deficits that
limit the prospect of state support for social services agencies (Allard, 2010). This limits
the places where low income people who are sick, pregnant, or with young families have
33
to turn to in the time of a food crisis/emergency. One possible solution to this dilemma
and limited funding is AB 152 (Fuentes).
AB 152, titled Food Banks: grants: voluntary contributions: income tax credits, is
a proposed bill that would establish the State Emergency Food Assistance Program
(SEFAP) for the state of California. This program would be established within the
Department of Social Services (DSS) (Robinson-Taylor, 2011). The program would
purchase and distribute healthy, California grown food to low-income communities as
well as to people who are food insecure. Also provided is a tax credit to California
growers who would donate fresh fruits and vegetables to California food banks
(California Association of Food Banks [CAFB], 2011).
Under the umbrella of DSS, the Department of Public Health (DPH) would be
mandated to investigate and apply for federal funding opportunities regarding healthy
eating and the prevention of obesity. They would also have the authority to award grants
and in-kind support to eligible nonprofits to encourage the distribution of fresh fruits and
vegetables. Moreover, they would be required to implement and initiate programs with
the focus of preventing obesity and hunger and promoting healthy eating as well as
increasing access to nutritious food in food deserts. (USDA, 2009a)
AB 152 provides a potential stopgap for many food insecure people who reside in
California. It provides a tax incentive that California growers and producers can get
behind. This bill can provide many needed programs that target food access, healthy
eating, and health disparities that arise from non-nutritional eating and obesity. This bill
34
is important to the state of California because we are missing a fundamental resource, a
state-run emergency food provision.
Local Private Emergency Food Programs
In the years since the Reagan administration, there has been a development of an
extensive emergency food system to respond to food insecurity and hunger in the United
States. In the early 1980s, public attention was drawn to the growing problem of food
insecurity and hunger. This growing issue was associated with economic and tax policies
that had the effect of redistributing income from the poor and middle income groups to
the wealthy. The effect was devastating; low-income people faced a reduction in
purchasing power due to increases in food costs, living wages, and public benefit levels,
therefore, restricting access to affordable food sources (Bartkowski et al., 2004; Curtis,
1997). These cuts provided a spotlight that shone on the poor living in urban
neighborhoods in which gentrification and disinvestment led to increasing rates of
homelessness and joblessness. As the problems continued to be exacerbated by Reagan
“undo[ing] the welfare state and shift[ing] care (and control) of the poor to the private
sector” (Poppendieck, 1994, p. 71), the public and food advocates responded by creating
emergency food programs. The emergency food system is comprised of a diverse set of
organizations that have a common goal of providing food and nourishment to individuals
in need.
The term “emergency food” refers to programs that distribute prepared meals or
groceries to those directly in need. There are different terms to designate different
35
programs that distribute emergency food. The Soup Kitchen, a popular term, designates a
place where an individual can receive a prepared meal. The food pantry is used to
indicate a site where a person can receive groceries to take home (Poppendieck, 1994).
For the purposes of this study term food bank means “a public or charitable institution
that maintains an established operation involving the provision of food or edible
commodities, or the products of food or edible commodities…” (Emergency Food
Assistance Act, 1988) All of the aforementioned programs cater to an emergency that
indirectly, address poverty, as well as individuals and/or households that lack the means
to have adequate resources to secure meals. Food banks are not perfect and in
Poppendieck’s article titled “Dilemmas of Emergency Food Aid” (1994), she outlines the
strengths/positives and the negative/weaknesses of the Emergency Food System. A
description of the strengths and weaknesses follow in the next segments.
Emergency Food System Positives
The Emergency Food System provides several positives, such as more food.
Many of the people who frequent such establishments do so because their food stamps or
budget is limited; thus, they can now stretch their meager resources. Because these
establishments are community-based, they are better tuned into community needs and
wants; therefore, they are able to respond appropriately by tailoring community responses
(Bailey et al., 2001). Many of the emergency food establishments are informal in nature,
which makes them approachable and welcoming. They can provide an avenue and
opportunities for clients to socialize and interact without feeling marginalized. These
36
places can also offer fertile ground for communication and outreach to the poor regarding
vital programs, such as food stamps. It also provides a captive audience for information
dissemination regarding welfare, Medi-cal and other benefits and entitlements.
These hubs can be a socially acceptable place to bring the affluent and destitute
together to in a compassionate way. It can be an education for all who volunteer or
participate in the emergency food system, perhaps closing the gaps between them.
Ostrander (as cited in Curtis, 1997) stated,
Some analysts content that in voluntary agencies, middle- and upper- class
volunteers and staff meet face-to-face the contradictions and casualties of a social
and economic system that does not meet the needs of all its citizens and that this
experience has the potential for heightening awareness of the need for services.
(p. 215)
Emergency food programs are great for using products that would possibly have gone to
waste and ended up in landfills. Food banks can be a constituent and ally in the struggle
for more equitable distribution of resources and progressive policies, provide increased
support, and bring creative solutions for poverty related problems.
Emergency Food System Negatives
However, emergency food systems do have some negatives/weaknesses. Clients
who frequent food banks and emergency food programs lack legally enforceable rights.
There is no recourse or investigation when requests or appeals are turned down. The
system that provides an invaluable service to many in the United States is fragile. It is
37
heavily dependent on volunteers and donations. It is susceptible to NIMBIYism and
volunteer/employee burnout. (NIMBYism is an opposition to the locating of something
considered undesirable in one’s neighborhood [nimby, n.d.] such as a prison, food bank,
or incinerator.) Also, culturally and nutritionally speaking, the available food may not be
accepted or adequate (Poppendieck, 1994).
These centers are also fragmented. Some neighborhoods are underserved while
others are over served. Hours that these places are open are also sporadic; some are open
all day and night while others are only open a few hours. By definition, emergency means
short-term; however, the state of emergency food is long-term. Food banks have become
a staple in our society; many people have grown up eating what is provided by the
emergency food system and it is normal. The institutionalization of the programs have
ingrained the idea that poverty and destitution is permanent in our society; it has become
a part of our discourse (Bailey et al., 2001; Bartkowski et al., 2004; Curtis, 1997).
The pros and cons of the emergency food system tell a tale of permanency in our
society. The goal is to eliminate hunger, however, hunger is a pestilence that is here to
stay in the United States. Hunger is an outcome of our disjointed and fragmented social
system. The goal of food banking is the coordinated provision of emergency food to
those who suffer from hunger and malnutrition. This juncture is critical because it is
where food security and social policy as well as health and nutrition, income security,
welfare reform, and the human right to food intersect (Riches, 2002). Food banks receive
donations of surplus or salvageable food then distribute it from the food bank itself or to
38
other feeding programs. These organizations may be non-profit, for profit, communitybased warehouses that solicit, store, and distribute food from local and regional sources
as well as the Federal commodity distribution program and the food industry (Bartkowski
et al., 2004).
While the government at all levels, federal, state, and local, has become involved,
so has the private and volunteer sector, as well as and especially the religious sector
(Bartkowski et al., 2004; Poppendiek, 1996). For example, a study conducted in 1987 in
New York City found that 82% of emergency food programs were affiliated with a
religious group (Poppendiek, 1994). Bartkowski et al. (2004) found that within Alabama
and Virginia, a majority (73%) of the food agencies were faith-based organizations,
which served predominately rural residents and communities.
Both food insecurity and hunger are chronic issues that stem from inadequate
resources. This may be due to the economic downturn as well as systemic faults. The
access to sufficient resources is an increasing problem now being tackled by faith-based
relief organizations. With the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the government
recognized the need to implement a policy that could provide extra resources to combat
the growing food insecurity issue. Thus, they expanded government funding for faithbased and community initiatives and sponsored the Charitable Choice Act of 2001. The
language used for the title of this initiative is designed to underscore new freedoms
extended to faith-based organizations. They are intended to preserve the civil and
39
religious liberties of welfare clients, and provide poverty relief without fostering welfare
dependency (Bartkowski et al., 2004)
In a study conducted after the passing of the Charitable Choice Act, it was found
that religious congregations as prospective providers of social services offer many
services to aid the needy. It was found in this study that pastors of these organizations see
this as an opportunity to provide a holistic form of relief, which is unlike public
assistance; it aims to address both material and non-material needs. This study also
concluded that the desire of the faith-based organizations was to offer a different type of
service delivery which concentrated on intensive and sustained interpersonal engagement
with consumers, providing direct intermittent relief and focus on community
collaboration (Bartkowski & Regis, 1999). Because of this initiative there was surge of
faith-based emergency food organizations working within the emergency food assistance
system. In a study conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (as cited in
Ohls & Saleem-Ismail, 2002), it was found that of the 3,734 emergency food assistance
system organizations surveyed via telephone that 65% of the emergency kitchens and
67% of the food panties were faith-based and located in churches, synagogues, and
mosques. The study also found that food banks within the system were not typically run
by faith-based organizations (Ohls & Saleem-Ismail, 2002).
Second Harvest
Feeding American formally known as Second Harvest, is the nation’s leading
hunger relief charity which runs a network of over 200 food banks, providing food to
40
more than 46,000 agencies that then operate more than 94,000 local programs. It was
estimated in 1997 that Second Harvest was feeding more than 25-26 million people, over
one-third of which were children (Bailey et al., 2001; Biggerstaff et al., 2002). In a recent
study conducted by Feeding America they found that in 2010 they provided food to more
than 37 million, thus 1 in 8 Americans relied on them for food and groceries.
(Mathematica Policy Research, 2010) Many of the people frequenting these
establishments are at or below the poverty line. Many are seniors living on limited
incomes or families and single-parent households. Biggerstaff et al. (2002) studied
emergency food program participants in Virginia and found that the people frequenting
the programs were proportionately women, single-parent households, African Americans,
and people without a high school diploma. Outlined in the study were the top reasons
why these people were seeking assistance, were difficulty making ends meet, disability,
unemployed, recently lost a job, senior citizen, and/or recently left the welfare system.
Additionally, this study indicated that there is a parallel between measures of poverty and
food insecurity. Many of the people reported that they had recently been homeless, were
victims of domestic violence, were unable to pay their electricity and gas bills, indicating
they perhaps lived in an economically precarious situation. The above characteristics
made it likely they would not be able to meet basic family needs in the long term;
therefore, they are reliant on services.
41
Regulation of Disbursements
For food to be dispersed to eligible families through food banks, the families must
first meet the income requirements designated by the individual states. There is some
leeway regarding the income criteria as states can adjust based on needs. The food
received is bought by the USDA then processed, packaged, and shipped to the designated
states. The amount of food shipped to that state depends on the amount of low-income,
unemployed, and homeless people. Once the food has arrived, it is up to the individual
agencies to determine how the food is dispersed. This may mean that the agency
themselves disperses the food, or they may have community partners distribute the food.
(USDA, 2010b) The goods or commodities available through the TEFAP which can be
found on the TEFAP website (http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/tefap/), includes
but is not limited to, canned and dried fruits, canned vegetables, fruit juices, dried beans,
peanut butter, and soups. These commodities are usually distributed through charitable
means.
Critics of the community-based, community responsive charity, aka Food Banks,
claim that this type of charity contributes to the cycle of dependence and poverty. Food
banks are not part of the solution, but part of the long-term poverty problem. They shift
the focus away from the broken and fragmented welfare system as well as the
government’s responsibility to create access for its citizens to locate viable economic
opportunities (Bailey et al., 2001). Hilton (1993) also critiques the idea that the response
to hunger and the mechanism of emergency food was designed to be short-term;
42
however, the fact they have become a staple in our society is a testament to their design
flaw and failure.
Poppendiek (1998) stated that this design flaw was perhaps sending a message to
the people frequenting food banks that they were unable to assist themselves (as cited in
Bailey et al., 2001). Another critique of food banks is that they are a direct result of a
broken and fragmented economic system. Due to this fundamentally flawed economic
system, the number of food banks has increased, resulting in increased official procedure
and disconnect between volunteers and clients. With the mention of expanded
bureaucracy, it is likely the discussion of enforcing eligibility standards will happen so
thereafter, due to the increased demand of services, rules and regulations are instituted,
furthering the distance between volunteers and clients. With the increase of persons
requesting food assistance and decreases in overall support by state and Federal
government, suspicions of abuse have arisen along with tightened eligibility (Bailey et
al., 2001; Curtis, 1997; Poppendieck, 1994).
Enforcement of regulations such as the amount of food a person can receive and
the number of times a person can receive food is now commonplace in many emergency
food agencies (Curtis, 1997). Institutionalization of these voluntary agencies continues to
depersonalize the experience, contributing to the view that poverty is a result of personal
defects and temporary setbacks that constitutes an emergency (Curtis, 1997). Poppendiek
(1998) comments on this figurative and literal distance seen in emergency food programs,
she concludes that the social distance between the volunteers and clients is real, which
43
compounds on the stigma, associated with the use of food banks. Stein (1989) observed
that the framework of the welfare system is designed to publically humiliate recipients
and emphasize their dependence on those who hold power to either provide or deny
services and resources.
Stigma and Emergency Food Programs
The disconnect Poppendiek (1998) discusses continues to place focus on the
people who are in need of the food instead of the problems that have arisen due to social
inequality. This gulf also comes in the form of literal and figurative barriers to services.
Curtis (1997) observed that status and experiential differences manifest in a variety of
ways, such as barriers in the form of tables, walls, partitions, and separate rooms. Other
barriers may take the form of regulations and guidelines imposed by the agency, such as
where people can line up to receive their food, what forms they must fill out, and what
documentation they have to provide. Although these policies, practices, and physical
barriers are supplanted by practical considerations, they are indicators of authority and
control. These distinctions sharpen the focus on the differences between social class,
status, and identity of those receiving help and those providing. Through participant
observation, Curtis (1997) identified that many of the volunteers at the food pantry
viewed the recipients as examples of the “undeserving poor” (p. 217). This stigma is
perpetuated by the volunteers and agency staff by their viewing of the clients through a
lens that sees the clients as powerless. This powerlessness is further experienced in
emergency food agencies due to the lack of choice for the type and quantity of food they
44
receive. This inability to make choices emphasizes powerlessness. Due to this there may
be oversight when considering cultural and individual food preferences (Bailey et al.,
2001; Curtis, 1997; Poppendieck, 1994).
Summary
In this chapter, relevant literature to this project was reviewed. The topics
discussed in this chapter included food security, community food security, and legislation
to aimed to combat food insecurity. Also discussed was the concept of food justice, what
a food desert is and how it can affect communities. Following that section there was a
discussion on emergency food program such as SNAP and TEFAP. This section included
a discussion of AB 152 a new piece of legislation that establishes a California emergency
food provision system. This is followed by a section that highlights local private
emergency food programs. The final section is an exploration of receiving emergency
food from programs and stigma that may be associated.
45
Chapter 3
METHODS
The aim of this study was to collect quantifiable data gleaned from descriptive
surveys that question who the food bank consumers are, what reasons they came to the
food bank, if they are satisfied with the food bank, if and what transportation challenges
they have, which site do they prefer (i.e., Central or Mobile) and if they have used other
services that are offered such as, cooking demonstrations, health screenings, nutrition
education and resource counseling. The practical application of the information collected
during this research will give other street-level food assistance programs an idea of the
types of consumers use emergency food and how to better meet their needs. This research
helps the Sacramento Food Bank as well as other emergency food providers grasp ways
to meet the needs of a diverse set of clients. Data will be collected at both the central and
mobile site location. By comparing the data collected at the mobile sites to the central
location, the researcher will gather data that will hopefully describe and depict the current
Sacramento Food Bank consumers are and whether the emergency food services are
appropriate and successful.
Design
The unit of analysis is the Sacramento Food Bank food service, Sacramento Food
Bank consumers, and the research design is that of descriptive research. The goal of
descriptive research is to describe the characteristics of a population, situation and events.
The research has a cross-sectional approach that paints a picture of the consumers who
46
frequent both the mobile and central food bank site and whether they are satisfied with
the emergency food services provided. The survey tool has a variety of questions that will
describe whether Sacramento Food Bank consumers’ are receiving dignified services that
provide food for their ongoing need in a way that diminishes stigmatism and encourages
dignity. Questions such as “Over the course of the year, how often do you use emergency
food providers?” and “What best describes why you came to the food bank today?” may
help the researcher and the Sacramento Food Bank access frequent usage and why the
respondent continues to use emergency food. The Likert scale question “How satisfied
are you with the food bank?” will help other emergency food providers as well as the
Sacramento Food Bank know if the current service delivery set-up is working and what
the consumer likes and dislikes about the system. The two questions in the survey
pertaining to transportation will help with understanding the transportation challenges
many consumers of emergency food services face on a daily basis. Finally the three
questions asking the consumer to mark yes or no pertaining to which site they like best
will help the Sacramento Food Bank understand which model is best serving the needs of
their consumers. Not only will this survey provide this information, but it will also
capture observations at a single point in time (Babbie & Rubin, 2005).
The quantitative data was collected through a survey via a self-administered
format. Survey research has advantages such as reduced expenditure, speed, and lack of
interview bias, possible anonymity, privacy as well as an excellent tool for measuring
attitudes such as customer satisfaction. The goal of using a research tool such as a survey
47
is to collect open and honest answers. A weakness of survey research is that it has the
potential to be artificial and superficial. However, this was minimized by discussing and
asking potential respondents as a group to participate. This was also diminished by
offering a self-administered survey. Respondents are sometimes reluctant to report on
controversial attitudes for the fear of repercussions, but this is minimized because of the
anonymity of self-administered surveys (Babbie & Rubin, 2005).
Sampling and Recruitment
The survey was handed out and issued only to adult clients participating in the
emergency food service program. The sampling design used was stratified sampling to
allow for obtaining a greater degree of representativeness, thus decreasing the probable
sampling error (Babbie & Rubin, 2005). Because there are different populations who use
the Sacramento Food Bank food services, this researcher divided and delineated who was
going to be surveyed to allow the sample to be more representative of the attending
population. The size of the sample was not predicted, this is due to using non-probability
sampling. This type of sampling is used when probability sampling or random sampling
is not possible or appropriate. One limitation of non-probability sampling is that is
generally less reliable. This research will be depending on the reliance of available
subjects (Babbie & Rubin, 2005).
The participants consisted of consumers attending the mobile Sacramento Food
Bank distribution sites as well as the central food bank location. To qualify for
participation in this study, the participant had to be a consumer of the Sacramento Food
48
Bank emergency food services, on the day the survey was issued. The participants
included adults, who were 18 and older, of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, as well
as diverse gender and ethnicity. This was an attempt to capture the diversity of the
consumers who receive services as the Sacramento Food Bank. Characteristics that would
exclude someone from participating in this research are being under the age of 18, not
receiving food on the day research was conducted, and those who cannot freely give
permission to participate in the research.
Procedures
To recruit participants the researcher contacted the food bank attendees while they
waited in line to receive food, thus reliance on available subjects. The researcher
announced to the group of consumers who she was, the purpose of the survey, the rule
(i.e., age 18 to participate), that they may pick up a pen, two consent forms and survey
from a table at the head of the food bank line. The researcher instructed them that if they
were willing to participate they must pick up one informed consent form that explains the
study’s purpose and objectives of the research for their records and one to sign and date
for the researcher’s records (see Appendix A). At the bottom of the informed consent
form is the following statement: “by signing this consent form, you are indicating that
you fully understand the above information and agree to participate in the study.” The
participants were then asked to fill out the survey after they had received their food. They
were then instructed that once they exited the food line and the building there will be two
brightly colored boxes with bold lettering instructing them to drop their signed consent
49
form in one, and their completed survey in the other. The researcher was not present at
the survey collection site, thus potentially diminishing the level of stress participants may
have felt about disclosing private information.
Instrumentation
This researcher constructed a survey using demographic questions; they included
asking the participant their gender, race, ethnicity and education. All questions contained
in the survey instrument were closed-ended. Included in the survey were multiple choice,
categorical, ordinal, numerical, and Likert-scale questions (see Appendix B). According
to Babbie and Rubin (2008), often a Likert scale is used when the researcher is
determining the extent of a respondent’s attitude or particular beliefs; this measurement
technique is popular and extremely useful.
Other questions on the survey pertained to frequency of emergency food usage,
why they came to the food bank today, satisfaction with the food bank, how they arrived,
whether it was hard to get to and from the site and participation in Sacramento Food
Bank additional services. The goal of this tool was to capture a picture of who attends the
Sacramento Food Bank emergency food services and if they are satisfied. The survey was
authored by the researcher; however, it was loosely modeled after the one used in the
Emergency Food Assistance Program Customer Survey Report (September 2008),
prepared by Laura Pierce Consulting. This survey was never before used; therefore, this
researcher cannot estimate the reliability or validity of this tool.
50
Analysis
The data collected was statistically analyzed using SPSS, The Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences. This statistical analysis software allowed this researcher to
explore, describe, who the Sacramento Food Bank food service consumers are and if they
are satisfied or not with the emergency food program at either/or the central location
and/or the mobile distribution site.
This researcher used descriptive statistics to do statistical computation that
described the characteristics of the sample. Using uni-variate analysis each case will be
examined one variable at a time. This means that for each case, the attribute for that
variable will be listed. In addition the data collected was analyzed using cross tabulation,
which is an appropriate statistical analysis tool because it separated the data based on the
survey site.
Protection of Human Subjects
Protection of the human subjects is of the utmost importance. This researcher
submitted the required Protocol for the Protection of Human Subjects, which was
reviewed by the Office of Research Administration as well as the Human Subjects
Committee and determined that this study poses minimal risk to participants.
This research is minimal risk, which will be addressed prior to the subject taking
the survey as well as on the consent form. As outlined in the Policies and Procedures of
the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects and defined by Federal Policy,
§46.102(i), minimal risk is when the chance of and degree of harm or discomfort
51
participants may feel is no greater than what they may experience in their daily lives or
during routine physical or psychological exams or tests. Due to the survey being minimal
risk, which may cause potential discomfort to the subject, the researcher provided a
community referral to Sacramento County Mental Health Services.
The participants of the study were approached as a group. The goal of this style of
recruitment was to minimize the possibility of respondents feeling coerced or influenced
to participate. The respondents were assured that their identification was kept
confidential. All surveys collected were kept in a locked box, in locked cabinet, in a
locked room in the researcher’s home. On the consent form information was given to the
participant explaining that discomfort may be felt but assurance was given that if they
wanted to stop for any reason, they could. The respondent was also informed that
participation in the survey was voluntary and in no way affected their eligibility to use
and receive Sacramento Food Bank services. On the consent form, the subject was
informed of the definition of minimal risk and what they might experience. This
researcher anticipated that perhaps the survey questions pertaining to education
attainment and why the respondent came to the food bank were questions that may cause
no more harm than questions on a routine physical or psychological exams or test. To
negate this potential discomfort, this researcher introduced the survey with the preface. If
at any time the respondent was to feel any discomfort they could discontinue the survey
or refuse to answer any question/s, they may do so.
52
This researcher anticipated no conflict of interest between the role of the
researcher, the source of participants (i.e., the Sacramento Food Bank), and the
organization. This researcher estimated that the contributors recruited for the survey were
unknown to the researcher before meeting them at the Sacramento Food Bank and/or the
mobile distribution site. Conflict of interest between the researcher and the Sacramento
Food Bank administration was avoided by informing them about the consent procedure,
the survey contents, and the time and place the survey would be conducted.
Communication during the research process was open and facilitated. Because the
participants were well informed both verbally as a group and individually on the consent
form about what they were being asked to do, what level of harm they may be exposed
to, and that they could stop taking the survey if they felt any discomfort, conflict of
interest was negated. Also, the subjects were informed and reassured that if they agreed
or refused to participate in the survey, it would not reflect on them or their ability to
accept Sacramento Food Bank services.
Summary
This chapter addressed the methods used in this research study. The research
design, study population and recruitment methods were described. This chapter also
examined the variables, the questionnaire, the data gathering procedures and data analysis
plan. The protection of human subjects was described in detail. The next chapter presents
the findings of the data analysis.
53
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter analyzes the results of this study. Using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis, and cross tabulation, 19 graphs were created using SPSS and Microsoft
Excel 2007. Because the researcher has chosen to do a descriptive study; each graph will
be explained. This data was collected from self-administered surveys collected at both the
central location and the one mobile distribution site of the Sacramento Food Bank,
emergency food distribution. This provides an overall picture of the people who attend
the Sacramento Food Bank and central site and mobile distribution site, the frequency of
attendance and why they attend the food bank. Also discussed is how satisfied they were
with the service by staff, quantity of food, facility layout and accessibility, polices such
as rules and hours, as well as the registration process. From there is an exploration of
transportation methods and whether it was difficult getting to and from the central or
mobile site. Three graphs exploring whether there was cross attendance by individuals
between the central and mobile site and which they liked better follows. This is followed
up by the last question if the individual had used any additional services the Sacramento
Food Bank offers, like cooking demonstrations, health screenings, nutrition education
and resource counseling.
As mentioned in the previous chapter the purpose of this research was to evaluate
two different service delivery models used by the Sacramento Food Bank food service
54
program. By collecting quantifiable data gleaned from client/customer satisfaction
surveys it could possibly be determined if the objectives outlined in the strategic plan for
the food assistance program are being met. These objectives which are outlined in the
Sacramento Food Bank Strategic plan are as follows: feeding families with on-going
need, offering a more dignified service, famers’ market style food delivery system, and
optimization of distribution locations. Each table is broken down into responses from the
central food bank and the mobile food bank. This is to show a comparison between them.
Research Purpose
Sacramento Food Bank serves a very diverse population, this study will research
will describe: (a) who the consumers are who use the emergency food services, (b) why
they come to the food bank, (c) if they are satisfied with the emergency food provisions,
(d) if they have transportation challenges coming to and from the food bank, (e) which
site they prefer, and (f) if they use other services that are provided by the Sacramento
Food Bank and Family Services.
Survey Responses
A total of 48 Sacramento Food Bank consumers were surveyed. Of those 48
Sacramento Food Bank consumers, a total of 48 completed the survey, 23 were from the
Central Food Bank location, and 23 were from the Mobile Food Bank site.
Demographics
Of the 48 consumers who participated in the survey 41.7% were male and 58.3%
were female.
55
Table 1
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Count
10
13
23
Percent
43.5
56.5
100.0
Count
10
15
25
Percent
40.0
60.0
100.0
Count
20
28
48
Percent
41.7
58.3
100.0
Central Food Bank
Mobile Food Bank
Total
Race
Of the 48 who were surveyed two did not answer this question. This table shows
the diversity of the consumers at both the central food bank as well as the mobile food
bank. To allow for meaningful statistical analysis the Eastern European category was
recoded into the White category. At the Central Food Bank more than half of the
respondents were African American/Black, 52.2%. This is in contrast to the Mobile Food
Bank where more than half, 59.1% were White. At the Mobile Food Bank none of the
respondents were Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, where as the central has 4.3%
respondents who were Asian as well as Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
56
Table 2
Race
American
African
Hawaiian/
Indian /
American
Pacific
Alaskan
Asian
/ Black
Islander
White
Native
Other
Total
Central
Count
1
12
1
7
1
1
23
Food Bank
Percent
4.3
52.2
4.3
30.4
4.3
4.3
100.0
Mobile
Count
0
5
0
13
3
1
22
Food Bank
Percent
0.0
22.7
0.0
59.1
13.6
4.5
100.0
Count
1
17
1
20
4
2
45
Percent
2.2
37.8
2.2
44.4
8.9
4.4
100.0
Total
Ethnicity
The respondents were only asked whether they were Hispanic or Not Hispanic or
Latino/a. Of the Central Food Bank consumers 34.8% responded that they were Hispanic,
56.5% did not report ethnicity. Of the Mobile Food Bank consumers 64% reported that
they were not of Hispanic or Latino/a descent. Only 12% did not respond at the Mobile
Food Bank.
57
Table 3
Ethnicity
Not Hispanic
Hispanic
or Latino/a
Not reported
Total
Central
Count
8
2
13
23
Food Bank
Percent
34.8%
8.7%
56.5%
100.0%
Mobile
Count
6
16
3
25
Food Bank
Percent
24.0%
64.0%
12.0%
100.0%
Count
14
18
16
48
Percent
29.2%
37.5%
33.3%
100.0%
Total
Education
Of the consumers who were surveyed at the Central Food Bank location more
than 50% had either some college or a college degree. Whereas in contrast, of the Mobile
Food Bank consumers 68% had little/no high school or a high school diploma/GED.
58
Table 4
Education Attainment
High
Little/No
School
High
diploma /
Some
College
Not
School
GED
college
degree
reported
Total
Central
Count
3
6
9
3
2
23
Food Bank
Percent
13.0
26.1
39.1
13.0
8.7
100.0
Mobile
Count
8
9
7
1
0
25
Food Bank
Percent
32.0
36.0
28.0
4.0
0.0
100.0
Count
11
15
16
4
2
48
Percent
22.9
31.3
33.3
8.3
4.2
100.0
Total
Frequency of Use
A majority of the respondents, 66.7% reported that they used emergency food
services monthly. Only 18.8% used emergency food services one to two times a year.
59
Table 5
Frequency of Use
1 to 2 times a
Weekly
Monthly
year
Total
Central Food
Count
0
18
5
23
Bank
Percent
0.0%
78.3%
21.7%
100.0%
Mobile Food
Count
7
14
4
25
Bank
Percent
28.0%
56.0%
16.0%
100.0%
Count
7
32
9
48
Percent
14.6%
66.7%
18.8%
100.0%
Total
Reasons Why People Came to the Food Bank
This question was asked to find out why people were coming to the Food Bank.
Each of the 48 people surveyed could pick multiple reasons.
Ranking them in order from one to eight they are as follows: 1) 34 out of 48
(70.8%) stated they had an ongoing need for food; 2) 17 out of 48 (35.4%) stated that
being disabled was their reason for coming to the food bank; 3) 9 out of 48 (18.8%)
stated temporary job loss was their reason for coming to the food bank; 4) 8 out of 48
(16.7%) marked ran out of food stamps as why they came to the food bank; 5) 7 out of 48
(14.6%) stated an unexpected household expense and other reason; 6) 5 out of 48 (10.4%)
marked temporary health problem as the reason why they came to the food bank; 7) 4 out
60
of 48 (8.3%) respondents checked no grocery store nearby as the reason they came to the
food bank; 8) 1 out of the 48 (2.1%) surveyed marked experienced a disaster as the
reason from coming to the food bank. Of the 70.8% consumers who reported ongoing
need, 60.9% of those surveyed were from the Central Food Bank and 80% were from the
Mobile Food Bank.
Table 6
Reasons for Coming to the Food Bank
Central Food Bank
Mobile Food Bank
Total
23
25
48
Count
14
20
34
Percent
60.9
80.0
70.8
Count
7
10
17
Percent
30.4
40.0
35.4
Count
4
5
9
Percent
17.4
20.0
18.8
Ran out of food
Count
3
5
8
stamps
Percent
13.0
20.0
16.7
Count
4
3
7
Percent
17.4
12.0
14.6
Total Surveyed
Ongoing need
Disabled
Temp. job loss
Other
61
Table 6 continued
Central Food Bank
Mobile Food Bank
Total
23
25
48
Total Surveyed
Unexpected
Count
2
5
7
expense
Percent
8.7
20.0
14.6
Temp. health
Count
2
3
5
problem
Percent
8.7
12.0
10.4
Count
3
1
4
Percent
13.0
4.0
8.3
Count
1
0
1
Percent
4.3
0.0
2.1
No grocery store
Disaster
Satisfaction with the Food Bank
The next five tables were created from a Likert scale question that requested the
respondents to rank service by staff, quantity of food given, facility layout and
accessibility, polices (i.e., rules, hours, etc.) and registration process. They were asked to
rank these on a scale from not satisfied to very satisfied. To allow for meaningful
statistical analysis, these were recoded into two response categories: (1) “not satisfied,”
which included all responses from not satisfied and somewhat not satisfied; and (2)
“satisfied,” which included all responses from somewhat satisfied, satisfied and very
satisfied.
62
Service by Staff
Of the 48 total respondents only 46 answered this question. Overall, consumers
who attended the Central Food Bank and the Mobile Food bank were satisfied with the
service provide by staff. Consumers who attended the Central Food Bank were 91.3%
satisfied and the people who attended the Mobile Food Bank were 95.7% satisfied with
the service provided by staff.
Table 7
Satisfaction and Service by Staff
Service by
Not
Staff
Satisfied
Satisfied
Total
Central Food
Mobile Food
Bank
Bank
Total
Count
2
1
3
Percent
8.7
4.3
6.5
Count
21
22
43
Percent
91.3
95.7
93.5
Count
23
23
46
Percent
50.0
50.0
100.0
63
Quantity of Food
Of the 48 total respondents only 43 answered this question. Consumers’ at both
the Central Food Bank and the Mobile Food Bank were highly satisfied, over 90% with
the quantity of food they received.
Table 8
Satisfaction and Quantity of Food
Central Food
Mobile Food
Bank
Bank
Total
Count
2
2
4
Percent
9.5
9.1
9.3
Count
19
20
39
Percent
90.5
90.9
90.7
Count
21
22
43
Percent
48.8
51.2
100.0
Quantity of
Food
Not Satisfied
Satisfied
Total
Facility Layout and Accessibility
There were 44 respondents who answered this question. Those surveyed at the
Mobile Food Bank site, 91.3% were satisfied with the facility layout and accessibility.
This is compared to only 71.4% of the Central Food Bank consumers who were satisfied.
This is a difference of 19.9%.
64
Table 9
Satisfaction with Facility Layout and Accessibility
Facility Layout
Not
and Accessibility
Satisfied
Satisfied
Total
Central
Mobile
Food Bank
Food Bank
Total
Count
6
2
8
Percent
28.6
8.7
18.2
Count
15
21
36
Percent
71.4
91.3
81.8
Count
21
23
44
Percent
47.7
52.3
100.0
Policies
Of the 48 total surveys collected only 44 people chose to respond to this question.
Of the people who chose to respond more than 90% of them were satisfied with the
policies at the Mobile Food Bank.
65
Table 10
Satisfaction with Policies
Policies (rules,
Not
hours, etc.)
Satisfied
Satisfied
Total
Central
Mobile
Food Bank
Food Bank
Total
Count
5
1
6
Percent
23.8
4.3
13.6
Count
16
22
38
Percent
76.2
95.7
86.4
Count
21
23
44
Percent
47.7
52.3
100.0
Registration Process
Again only 44 people out of the 48 chose to respond to this question. Of the 21
consumers who were surveyed at the Central Food Bank location, 19% were unsatisfied
with the registration process. Of the 23 consumers from the Mobile Food Bank who were
surveyed, over 95% were satisfied with the registration process.
66
Table 11
Satisfaction with Registration Process
Central
Mobile
Food Bank
Food Bank
Total
Count
4
1
5
Percent
19.0
4.3
11.4
Count
17
22
39
Percent
81.0
95.7
88.6
Count
21
23
44
Percent
47.7
52.3
100.0
Registration
process
Not Satisfied
Satisfied
Total
Overall Satisfaction
For this table, all responses from the five satisfaction questions were totaled
giving 221 responses. These were combined to show an overall percentage of
satisfaction. This table shows that overall people are 10% more satisfied with the Mobile
Food Bank site than the Central Food Bank.
67
Table 12
Overall Satisfaction with the Central and Mobile Food Bank Sites
Over All
Not Satisfied
Satisfied
Total
Central
Mobile
Food Bank
Food Bank
Total
Count
19
7
26
Percent
17.8
6.1
11.8
Count
88
107
195
Percent
82.2
93.9
88.2
Count
107
114
221
Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
Mode of Transportation
This question on the survey included a category of other. Several consumers
wrote in “biked” in the other category. Therefore, to allow for meaningful statistical
analysis, this variable was recoded into the walk category. Over 60.8% of the Central
Food Bank consumers arrived by driving themselves or walking / biking. Whereas 44%
of Mobile Food Bank consumers arrived by walking or biking. Also zero Mobile Food
Bank consumers reported taking the bus to the site whereas 17.4% of Central Food Bank
consumers arrived via bus.
68
Table 13
Arrived at Food Bank
Walk/Bike
Drive
Bus
Count
7
7
4
5
0
23
Bank
Percent
30.4
30.4
17.4
21.7
0.0
100.0
Mobile
Count
11
8
0
5
1
25
Percent
44.0
32.0
0.0
20.0
4.0
100.0
Count
18
15
4
10
1
48
Percent
37.5
31.3
8.3
20.8
2.1
100.0
Central
Carpooled Other
Total
Food
Food
Bank
Total
Difficulty Getting to and from the Food Bank
This table shows whether the consumers who attended both the Central Food
Bank and the Mobile Food Bank had difficulty getting to and from the site. Only one
response is missing from this table. Overall consumers surveyed at both sites reported
“no” it was not hard getting to and from either site. Three fourths of the consumers
surveyed checked that it was not hard getting to and from the food bank sites, while one
fourth reported that it was difficult getting to and from the sites.
69
Table 14
Hard Getting to and from
Yes
No
Total
Count
5
17
22
Percent
22.7
77.3
100.0
Count
6
19
25
Percent
24.0
76.0
100.0
Count
11
36
47
Percent
23.4
76.6
100.0
Central Food Bank
Mobile Food Bank
Total
Talk to Staff
All 48 respondents’ answered this question. Ninety-two percent of the people at
the mobile site reported that they talked to staff. This is in contrast to only 65.2% of the
people at the Central site responding that they had talked to staff.
70
Table 15
Talk to Staff
Yes
No
Total
Count
8
15
23
Percent
34.8
65.2
100.0
Count
23
2
25
Percent
92.0
8.0
100.0
Count
31
17
48
Percent
64.6
35.4
100.0
Central Food Bank
Mobile Food Bank
Total
Food Bank Usage Surveyed at Central Site
Of the 23 respondents who were surveyed at the Central site only five of them had
ever been to the mobile site. There is little cross attendance in this group.
Table 16
Food Bank Usage Surveyed at Central Site
Received food at
Received food at
Central
Mobile site in the past
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total
Central
Count
23
0
5
18
23
Food Bank
Percent
100.0
0.0
21.7
78.3
100.0
71
Food Bank Usage Surveyed at Mobile Site
Of the 25 respondents who were surveyed at the Mobile food bank location 14
reported that at sometime in the past they had been to the central food bank location to
receive emergency food. This table shows that there was more cross attendance between
the mobile site and the central site.
Table 17
Food Bank Usage Survey at Mobile Site
Received food at
Received food at
Mobile
Central site in the past
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total
Mobile Food
Count
25
0
14
11
25
Bank
Percent
100.0
0.0
56.0
44.0
100.0
Usage of Other Services at the Sacramento Food Bank
Of the 23 respondents at the Central Food Bank site only 17.4% use other services
provided. At the Mobile Food Bank site 72% of the 25 respondents used other services,
with 24% of them using multiple services. This is compared to none using multiple
services as the Central site.
72
Table 18
Usage of Other Services
Cooking
Health
Nutrition
Resource
Multiple
Demo
Screenings
Education
Counseling
Services
None
Total
Count
1
1
0
2
0
19
23
Bank
Percent
4.3
4.3
0.0
8.7
0.0
82.6
100.0
Mobile
Count
8
2
2
0
6
7
25
Percent
32.0
8.0
8.0
0.0
24.0
28.0
100.0
Count
9
3
2
2
6
26
48
Percent
18.8
6.3
4.2
4.2
12.5
54.2
100.0
Central
Food
Food
Bank
Total
Summary
This section presented an explanation of the data analysis procedures, including a
description of how the variables were recoded for meaningful statistical analysis. This
section also presented demographics, as well as an explanation of responses to each
question asked on the survey.
73
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter begins with a brief overview of pertinent information found in
Chapter 2 followed by a summary of important findings from the descriptive survey. Also
discussed are any unusual or unexpected findings from the survey. Next is a commentary
on how this research can be put to practical use along with a discussion containing advice
for future researchers on how to update or expand this research.
Summary
Equality is fundamentally about people having equal access to resources that
promote and facilitate human functioning. Hunger is related to food restriction, which
may be due to socio-political, socio-economic, socio-environmental and socio-cultural
situations. Hunger on any level, whether it is micro or macro, is an injustice. If resources
such as food are systematically denied to some and not others, it is an injustice. It is
unethical and inequitable.
This injustice may stem from asymmetric economic growth, unequal
improvements in daily living conditions, and unequal distribution of resources, thus,
suppressing human rights that perpetuate and worsen one’s life. Such suppression is
caused by societal failure. Unequal distribution of resources is a fundamental design flaw
within our deeper social structures and processes. Hunger is a direct violation of a
74
person’s fundamental right to live a healthy life without unnecessary suffering (Baker &
Friel, 2009).
Many emergency food providers have become institutionalized, meaning many of
them are regulated by policies and statutes, thus causing the providers to become narrow
and unwelcoming. The Sacramento Food Bank central site is a fixed location that leaves
gaps in services in certain geographic areas. This may place consumers at a disadvantage
due to time constraints and lack of transportation. There is growing concern that those
who are food insecure in Sacramento are not receiving the best possible services in a way
that is welcoming and efficient.
This research aimed to provide a picture of who the consumers are that come to
the Sacramento Food Bank and use their emergency food program. This descriptive
research looked into five areas: (a) the consumers who use the emergency food services,
(b) why they come to the food bank, (c) whether they are satisfied with the emergency
food provisions, (d) whether they have transportation challenges getting to and from the
food bank, (e) which site they prefer, and (f) whether they use other services provided by
the Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services.
This author assumed this research would describe:

who the consumers are

what their reasons were for coming to the food bank

if they had any transportation challenges arriving to and leaving from the food
bank
75

what their level satisfaction was and what their preference was concerning the
different service delivery model (i.e., Central or Mobile), and

show that the clients have more contact with staff, reducing stigmatization at the
mobile site.
Discussion
Demographics
A total of 48 Sacramento Food Bank consumers were surveyed. Of those 48,
41.7% were male and 58.3% were female. The demographic question pertaining to race
highlighted that at the central location more than half (52.2%) were African American,
contrasting the Mobile Food Bank where more than half (59.1%) the consumers reported
they were Caucasian. The consumers were also asked about their educational attainment.
The statistics for these questions revealed an interesting observation. Of the 23
consumers who participated in the survey at the Central Food Bank site, 50% of them
stated they had some college or a college degree. Whereas a majority (68%) of the
Mobile Food Bank participants reported they had little/no high school or a high school
diploma or GED. This researcher would have included questions in this section
pertaining to age, marital status, household size, and monthly income; however, they
were deemed too intrusive. Therefore, the demographics information is limited. This
limited information does, however, correlate with the findings from Biggerstaff, Morris,
and Nichols-Casebolt (2002) in which they examined people who attended emergency
food providers. The results of their study found that the sample of “emergency food users
76
had a higher proportion of women…African Americans and people without a high school
diploma” (p. 271).
Reasons for Attending the Food Bank
The next major finding in this study is why people went to the Sacramento Food
Bank. Originally included in the grouping of answers, the consumers could have checked
low-income; however, this answer was deemed too intrusive and removed from the
survey. In the space left for consumers to write in the reason for going to the Sacramento
Food Bank, 10 people wrote low-income. One person wrote “homeless/jobless/hungry.”
The top three reasons were ongoing need for food, permanently disabled, and temporary
job loss. This was also a similar finding in the Biggerstaff et al. (2002) study; they found
that these were the consumers’ chief reasons for seeking food assistance in 1998. The
fourth reason for attending the emergency food services was running out of food stamps.
This researcher thought that this percentage of people would be higher. Research has
shown that people and/or families who use SNAP usually run out of benefits before the
end of the month, causing the need to use emergency food assistance (Curtis, 1997).
Chernesky, Clark, Taren, and Quirk (1990) interviewed low-income families living in
Hillsborough County, Florida who used food stamps and found that about half the sample
also used food pantries due to running out of stamps at the end of the month (as cited in
Bailey et al., 2001).
77
Satisfaction with Sacramento Food Bank
The information for this section was correlated by combining five questions
pertaining to satisfaction with service by staff, quantity of food, facility layout and
accessibility, polices (i.e., rules, hours), and the registration process. This was a Likerttype scale question asking the consumers to rank their answers on a scale from not
satisfied to very satisfied. This question was re-coded into two response categories: (1)
“not satisfied,” which included all responses from not satisfied and somewhat not
satisfied; and (2) “satisfied,” which included all responses from somewhat satisfied,
satisfied, and very satisfied. For the purposes of discussion, the only chart highlighted
here is Overall Satisfaction. All 221 responses from the five satisfaction questions were
combined to show an overall percentage of satisfaction. Overall, people were 10% more
satisfied with the Mobile Food Bank. The researcher assumed that overall the consumers
would be more satisfied with the Mobile Food Bank. When exploring the five separate
satisfaction questions, the consumers at the Mobile Food Bank were consistently more
satisfied. With regard to service by staff, the Central Food Bank consumers were 91.3%
satisfied whereas the Mobile Food Bank was 95.7% satisfied. When exploring the
percentage of satisfaction with facility layout and accessibility, there was a difference of
19.9% satisfaction between the Central location and the Mobile Food Bank. This
percentage is similar to the question pertaining to policies. The Central location was only
76.2% satisfied compared to 95.7% satisfaction at the Mobile Food Bank. Moreover,
when the consumers were asked to rank their satisfaction about policies, the Central Food
78
Bank consumers were 81% satisfied in comparison to 95.7% satisfaction at the Mobile
Food Bank. This researcher believes it is due to the social and welcoming atmosphere at
the Mobile Food Bank.
Limitations
This study was limited in several areas that should be addressed in future research
if using this model and/or replicating the study. One issue in the study was that the
instrument used to survey Sacramento Food Bank consumers was not standardized. The
instrument was loosely modeled after the one used in the Emergency Food Assistance
Program Customer Survey Report (September 2008), prepared by Laura Pierce
Consulting. This survey created by the researcher was never before used; therefore, this
researcher could not estimate the reliability or validity of the tool.
This study was also limited by the small amount of current peer reviewed
literature on food banks and the current state of food insecurity. The majority of the
research regarding emergency food services and whom it services lies in the gray area of
literature, which can serve a valuable supplementary role, but is not to be solely relied
upon (American Psychological Association, 2010). Due to the continuing recession and
the unemployment rate continuing to stay at an alarming high, as well as social services
continuing to be cut, this area of social research needs to be continued. Food insecurity
affects more than 50.2 million Americans and 17.2 million children. This large number
tells a tale of an epidemic (Andrews, Carlson, & Nord, 2009). As previously discussed,
50% of the people surveyed at the Central Food Bank site stated they had some college or
79
a college degree. Perhaps the demographics of those who use emergency food services
are changing. Continued research needs to be done so agencies that provide this type of
ground level, emergency food service know who they are serving and how to better meet
their needs.
Another limitation of the study was that relevant questions pertaining to age,
marital status, government assistance received, household number, and income were not
permitted on the survey. This was due to the questions being deemed too intrusive.
Relevant studies on food insecurity may involve surveying only consumers who use
emergency food or they may sample low-income families (Bailey et al., 2001). In a study
conducted by Daponte, Lewis, Sanders, and Taylor (1998), they used variables such as
household structure, age, education, race, and car ownership to determine factors
affecting emergency food service usage among low-income recipients. In the study
“Living on the Edge: Examination of People Attending Food Panties and Soup Kitchens”
by Biggerstaff et al. (2002), they presented descriptive demographic and employment
data that assessed why the consumers sought out emergency food assistance, what other
economic risks they experienced, and their potential for long-term dependence on
emergency food assistance. In another study that intended to depict the people utilizing
the San Francisco Food Bank, Birnbaum, Chan, Farrell, Kornblau, and Zhang (2008)
used questions pertaining to family structure, age, household size, health characteristics
and receivership of government assistance to characterize its consumers. The
aforementioned studies have all been on a much smaller scale than the next study
80
mentioned. A study conducted by Cohen, Mabli, Potter, and Zhao (2010) for Feeding
America utilized 62,000 in-person interviews to provide an all-inclusive profile of the
consumers who used their emergency food services. To acquire this summary, the
researchers created client questionnaires that inquired about age, marital status, gender,
citizenship, highest education attainment, racial and ethnic background, employment,
household income, housing, use of government assistance, and health status. By not using
variables such as age, marital status, government assistance received, household number,
and income this researcher assumes that valuable information that could help depict the
Sacramento Food Bank consumers is missing. Therefore, needs of these consumers will
perhaps be missed and neglected.
Implications
The results of this study have important implications for the micro, mezzo, and
macro levels of social work as well as street level emergency food providers. Social
workers who work in low-income communities can utilize the results of this study to
educate themselves about food insecurity and how this can affect their clients. By social
workers educating themselves about this injustice, they can be more prepared to have
conversations regarding food security. Biggerstaff et al. (2002) states, “the social work
profession directs little attention to issues of hunger and food assistance
programs…social workers should include an assessment of food resources in determining
service needs” (p. 275). Once awareness takes place, the social worker is more likely to
have an open and honest conversation with a client about food insecurity. This can lead to
81
resource gathering and dissemination, thus, empowering clients and encouraging selfreliance.
At the mezzo level of practice, from this study, social workers can learn that the
centralized institutional model of the food bank is not satisfactory to consumers. Overall,
consumers were 10% more satisfied with the Mobile Food Bank than the Central Food
Bank. This may mean that an introspective look into the agency’s current service delivery
model is warranted. Another implication for this level of social work is that it encourages
resource development. This will perhaps look like instituting a community garden or
encouraging clients to attend famers markets that take SNAP benefits. Another idea is
perhaps starting a collective that gathers relevant social service providers interested in
creating and implementing innovative creative policies that stop the social injustice of
food insecurity.
Within the macro level this study highlighted that there is a need for a reworking
of existing policies. This means there needs to be an exploration of economic structure as
it pertains to poverty (Biggerstaff et al., 2002; Poppendieck, 1994). There also needs to
be continued effort on the part of social workers as well as food advocates to raise
awareness regarding the unmet needs of people who receive welfare assistance. Studies
mentioned in the previous chapters highlight that there is an ongoing need for improved
access to food. This can be done by fundamental framework development that improves
the purchasing power as it pertains to food costs and public benefits, therefore,
unrestricting access to affordable food sources. Something else that can be addressed on
82
this level is the issue of food deserts. This form of injustice directly affects consumers’
food choices, store accessibility, dietary caloric and nutrient intake, and produce quality.
“This disparate access to healthy food lies within a broader…framework of institutional
racism…it focus[es] on racialized access to…healthy food” (Alkon & Noorgaard, 2009,
p. 292). Only by advocating and lobbying for a reform of current policies as well as the
development of new policies can this injustice be righted.
Recommendations
For future research in this area, this researcher proposes several ideas that could
allow for greater understanding of who the food insecure are and who uses emergency
food services. This researcher recommends:

that there is a renewed effort by the profession of social work to address issues as
they pertain to food insecurity and hunger.

that this renewed effort includes research that is up to date and peer reviewed that
can address the systemic gaps that encourage and provoke food insecurity.

those professionals in the social work field take interest in this matter as it affects
not only clients, but also their daily functioning.

those who choose to expand upon this research, please create a survey tool that
can be standardized and includes questions about age, marital status, government
assistance, household members, as well as income. This will provide the
researcher/s a better depiction of the consumers and their unmet needs.
83
Conclusion
This researcher was inspired to study food insecurity and emergency food
provision due to her personal experience with hunger. Hunger is a social problem that lies
in the realm of social inequality. This injustice stems from unequal distribution of
resources, which is a fundamental flaw within our deeper social structures and processes.
Hunger in America affects more than 50 million people (Andrews et al., 2009). Where do
these people turn to in a time of need? Most likely they will utilize emergency food
services. But who are these people and what unmet need is driving them to use these
services? This is what this study aimed to do, to collect quantifiable data by issuing
descriptive surveys that depict and describe who the consumers are that use the
Sacramento Food Bank emergency food services.
The literature review for this study highlights that food insecurity is a major issue
that may not be well known, but should be. The study conducted by Andrews et al.
(2009) revealed that more than 17 million households in the United States are food
insecure. Many of these households reside near or below the federal poverty line. This
study highlighted the characteristics of those who have been found to be food insecure
and that they include households headed by single mothers and fathers as well as African
American and Hispanic households.
Food insecurity is about equality and having equal access to resources that
promote and facilitate human functioning, whether that is food, welfare assistance, or
employment. This unequal distribution of resources is a fundamental flaw within our
84
societal structure that community food security aims to remedy. This concept focuses on
remedying the social, economic, institutional, and political frameworks that can affect the
affordability, quantity, and quality of food in a community. To do this, there must be a
resurgence of social workers and other food advocates that seek to dismantle and then
build up new societal frameworks. Several examples of existing policies doing just this
are the Community Food Security Act, The Community Food Projects Legislation, and
the Community Food Security Initiative.
The aforementioned legislation aims to support the concept of food justice which
provides a theoretical bridge that helps close the gap between food insecurity and people
obtaining safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food. On one side of the bridge we
have an Eden of safe, nutritious food while on the other side, a food desert. Studies have
shown that food deserts are typically found in African American neighborhoods where
food prices are higher and the food available is of poorer quality (Block & Kouba, 2006;
Diex Roux et al., 2002). The studies done regarding food deserts are a testament to how
un-equal, oppressive, socially unjust, unhealthy, and unsustainable our food system is to
people who are disproportionately poor.
Many who live in food deserts turn to emergency food programs to fulfill their
unmet food needs. Programs such as federally funded SNAP and TEFAP as well as street
level emergency food services are stop gaps to which food insecure people turn. These
resources were developed to be only temporary, but have now become institutionalized
(Curtis, 1997). They still carry a temporary outlook, thus neglecting to remedy the deep
85
systemic flaws that are the real issues of why people are food insecure and hungry. Both
of these federally overseen programs have cumbersome application processes that are
intrusive and stigmatizing, which deter people from applying for assistance (FRAC,
2008). They are also ineffective in providing enough food; hence, a person may turn to
street-level emergency food services. These emergency food agencies are communitybased, which leads them to better attune to community needs and better able to respond to
the community (Bailey et al., 2001). Many of these agencies are informal in nature,
which make them approachable and welcoming. This was found in the research done for
this study; the consumers of the Sacramento Food Bank were 10% more satisfied with the
Mobile distribution than the centralized location. Food banks are helpful; however, they
also shift the focus away from the broken and fragmented social, economic, institutional,
and political frameworks.
Our nation is built upon the premises that everyone is to be treated equally.
However, as we can see from the literature cited above, this premise is still elusive. All
people are not treated equally; all people do not have equal access to resources. This is a
fundamental flaw in our country. Only by reworking the frameworks mentioned above
can we ensure that people have access to adequate food. Many choose to ignore this
injustice; many think that hunger is not happening in the United States, but people are
wrong. By attacking our current policies as well as using creative innovation, hopefully
we can remedy this fault.
86
APPENDICES
87
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate in Research
Emergency Food and Service Delivery
Alison Le Meur
Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Hello my name is Alison Le Meur; I am currently a second year graduate student
in the Master’s of Social Work program at California State University, Sacramento. As
part of my thesis/project I am conducting a quantitative study which calls for human
subjects to participate in a survey. The purpose of this research is to do an evaluation of
the two different service delivery models used by the Sacramento Food Bank food
service program. I will be researching both the mobile food distribution model and the
centralized food service delivery system. Furthermore, I will be exploring
client/consumer satisfaction with these two distinct models. I will also be acquiring data
regarding whether the objectives outlined in the Sacramento Food Bank Strategic Plan
are being met.
The information collected will assist this researcher as well as the Sacramento
Food Bank in knowing what style of service delivery best meets consumers’ needs.
Although, the information gathered might not benefit you directly, the knowledge
gathered during the research will benefit the Sacramento Food Bank as well as future
social service providers and other emergency food providers.
This study is considered to have “minimal risk”. This means that the probability
or magnitude of harm or discomfort will be no greater than what you might encounter in
daily life. You may stop at any time if you experience any distress or discomfort during
the survey. If you experience any distress at any time or after completing the survey,
please contact Sacramento County Mental Health at (916) 875-1005. They offer services
free through the county medical indigent service program.
Participation in this research is completely voluntary, so if during the process you
wish to discontinue taking the survey or refuse to answer questions you may do so.
Participation will not reflect upon the eligibility for services at the Sacramento Food
Bank and mobile distribution sites. If you choose to participate, you are not required to
answer questions that make you feel uncomfortable. Because participant confidentiality is
of the utmost importance the survey does not contain any identifiers, therefore it is
anonymous.
The surveys will be kept in a locked box, in a locked file cabinet, in a locked
room in my home. All surveys will be destroyed at the conclusion of the research study.
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about completing the survey or
participating in this study, you may contact me at (916) 224-6390 or at
alemeurz@calis.com. This research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr.
88
Susan Eggman, Associate Professor in the division of Social Work at the California State
University, Sacramento. She can be reached at (916) 278-7181 or eggmans@csus.edu.
Thank you for your time and participation. By signing this consent form, you are
indicating that you fully understand the above information and agree to participate in this
study.
Participant’s Signature: __________________________________ Date: _____________
89
APPENDIX B
Customer Survey
Sacramento Food Bank
This survey is to help the food bank better serve you. It is helpful for the food bank to
know a little bit about who they serve in order to better serve your needs. This survey will
only take few minutes of your time. This survey is anonymous - please take your time
and answer openly and honestly. If at any time you would like to stop answering the
survey that is O.K. Your answers will not impact your ability to use the food bank. Thank
you for your input.
Please check one:
1. Gender:
⃝ Male
⃝ Female
2. Race:
⃝ Asian
⃝ Black or African American
⃝ White
other Pacific Islander
⃝ Eastern European
⃝ American Indian or Alaskan Native
3. Ethnicity:
4. Education:
⃝ Hispanic
⃝ Other
⃝ Not Hispanic or Latino
⃝ Little or no high school
⃝ Some college
⃝ Native Hawaiian or
⃝ High school diploma/GED
⃝ College graduate
Below are questions about emergency food and the food bank:
5. Over the course of a year, how often do you use emergency food providers?
⃝ Weekly
⃝ Monthly
⃝ 1-2 times a year
6. What best describes why you came to the food bank today? (Please check all that
apply)
⃝ Ongoing need for food
health problem
⃝ Temporary job loss
⃝ Experienced a disaster
⃝ Temporary
⃝ Unexpected household
expense
⃝ Disabled
⃝ No grocery store nearby
⃝ Ran out of food stamps
⃝ Other ___________________________________
90
7. How satisfied are you with the food bank? Rate each item below, circle the
appropriate number :
Not
Satisfied
1
1
1
Somewhat
not Satisfied
2
2
2
Service by staff
Quantity of food
Facility layout and
accessibility
Policies (rules,
1
2
hours, etc.)
Registration
1
2
process
8. How did you arrive today at the food bank?
⃝ Walk
⃝ Drive
Somewhat
satisfied
3
3
3
Satisfied
4
4
4
Very
Satisfied
5
5
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
⃝ Bus
⃝ Carpooled
⃝ Other _______________________
9. Is it hard getting to and from the food bank?
⃝ Yes ⃝ No
10. Did you talk with food bank staff?
⃝ Yes ⃝ No
11. Have you received food at the Sacramento central food bank site?
⃝ Yes ⃝ No
12. Have you received food at the Sacramento mobile sites?
⃝ Yes
⃝ No
13. Which site do you like better?
⃝ Central food bank
⃝ Mobile distribution
14. Have you participated in any of the following additional services?
⃝ Cooking demonstrations
⃝ Health Screenings
education ⃝ Resource Counseling
⃝ None
⃝ Nutrition
91
REFERENCES
Alkon, A. H., & Norgaard, K. M. (2009). Breaking the food chains: An investigation of
food justice activism. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), 289-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1475682X.2009.00291.x
Allard, S. W. (2010, October 7). Poverty grows in suburbs, but social services don’t keep
up. University of Chicago. Retrieved from
http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=2119
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual. Washington, DC:
Author.
Anaf, S., Drummond, C., & Sheppard, L. A. (2011). Combining case study research and
systems theory as a heuristic model. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 13091315. doi: 10.1177/1049732307308946
Anderson, A. S., Cox, D. N., Lean, M. E., & Mela, D. J. (1998). UK consumer attitudes,
beliefs, and barriers to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. Public Health
and Nutrition Journal, 1(1), 61-80.
Andrews, M., Carlson, S., & Nord, M. (2009). Household food security in the United
States, 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Economic Research Report No.
83). Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err83/err83.pdf
Babbie, E. R., & Rubin, A. (2005). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Thomson Learning.
92
Babbie, E., & Rubin, A. (2008). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA:
Thompson Brooks/Cole.
Bailey, C., Claxton, L., Duffy, P. A., & Molnar, J. J. (2001). Private food assistance in a
small metropolitan area: Urban resources and rural needs. Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare, 28(3), 187-209.
Baker, P. I., & Friel, S. (2009). Equity, food security, and health equity in the Asia
Pacific region. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 18(4), 620-632.
Bao, Y., Chaloupka, F. J., Mirtcheva, D., Powell, L. M., & Slater, S. (2006). Food store
availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Preventative
Medicine, 44, 189-195. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.08.008
Bartkowski, J. P., & Regis, H. A. (1999). Religious organizations, anti-poverty relief, and
charitable choice: A feasibility study of faith based welfare reforming Mississippi.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government, 1-52.
Retrieved from
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/FaithBasedWelfare.pdf
Bartkowski, J. P., Casanova, V., Cashwell, S. T., Duffy, P. A., Molnar, J. J., & IrimiaVladu, M. (2004). Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 31(2), 157-177.
Beerman, K. A., Dittus, K. L., & Hillers, V. N. (1995). Benefits and barriers to fruit and
vegetable intake: Relationship between attitudes and consumption. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 27, 120-126.
93
Biggerstaff, M. A., Morris, P. M., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (2002). Living on the edge:
Examination of people attending food pantries and soup kitchens. Social Work,
47(3), 267-277.
Birnbaum, A., Chan, S., Farrell, B., Kornblau, M., & Zhang, Y. (2008). San Francisco
hungry: Who is utilizing food bank pantry services? Retrieved from
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~sandata/documents/foodbank.pdf
Block, D., & Kouba, J. (2006). A comparison of the availability and affordability of a
market basket in two communities in the Chicago area. Public Health Nutrition,
9(7), 837-845. doi: 10.1017/PHN2005924
Boa, Y., Chaloupka, F. J., Mirtcheva, D., Powell, L. M., & Slater, S. (2006). Food store
availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Preventive
Medicine, 44, 189-195. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.08.008
Burke, J. G., Keane, C. R., & Walker, R. E. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food
in the United States: A review of food deserts literature. Health and Place, 16,
876-884. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013
California Association of Food Banks (CAFB). (2001). Improving access to healthy food:
AB 152 (Fuentes), 1-2. Retrieved from
http://cafoodbanks/org.docs/AB%20152%20Full%20Factsheet.pdf
Castello, H., Desjardins, E., Kraak, V. I., Ladipo, P., & McCullum, C. (2005). Evidencebased strategies to build community food security. Journal of American Dietetic
Association, 105(2), 278-283. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.015
94
Chernesky, M., Clark, W., Taren, D. L., & Quirk, E. (1990). Weekly food servings and
participation in social programs among low income families. American Journal of
Public Health, 80(11), 1376-1278.
Cohen, D., Ringel, J., Romely, J. A., & Strum, R. (2007). Alcohol and environmental
justice: The density of liquor stores and bars in urban neighborhoods in the United
States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(1), 48-55.
Cohen, R., Mabli, J., Potter, F., & Zhao, Z. (2010). Hunger in America 2010: National
report prepared for Feeding America (Mathematica Reference No. 06251-600).
Retrieved from http://www.mathematicampr.com/PDFs/Nutrition/Hunger_in_America_2010.pdf
Curtis, K. A. (1997). Urban poverty and the social consequences of privatized food
assistance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(2), 207-226.
Daponte, B. O., Lewis, G. H., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (1998). Food pantry use among
low-income households in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 30(1), 57-63.
Diamant, A. L., Flynn, G., Guinyard, J. J., Lewis, L. B., Nascimento, L. M., Sloane, D.
C., & Yancey, A. K. (2005). African Americans’ access to healthy food options in
South Los Angeles restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 668673. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.050260
95
Diez Rouz, A. V., & Moore, L. V. (2006). Associations of neighborhood characteristics
with the location and type of food stores. American Journal of Public Health,
96(2), 325-331. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.058040
Diez Rouz, A., Morland, K., & Wing, S. (2002). The contextual effect of the local food
environment on residents’ diets: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study.
American Journal of Public Health, 92(11), 1761-1767.
Eikenberry, N., Hendrickson, D., & Smith, C. (2006). Fruit and vegetable access in four
low-income food deserts communities in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human
Values, 23, 371-383. doi: 10.1007/s10460-006-9002-8
Fisher, A., Forster, T., Gottlieb, B., & Winne, M. (2003). The healthy farms, food, and
communities act: Policy initiatives for the 2002 Farm Bill and the first decade of
the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html
Food Research and Action Center. (2008). Access and access barriers to getting food
stamps: A review of literature, 1-108. Retrieved from http://frac.org/newsite/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/fspaccess.pdf
Fuentes, F. (2011). AB 152 Assembly Bill – History. Retrieved from
ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_01510200/ab_152_bill_20110118_introduced.html
Furey, S., Mcliveen, H., & Strugnell, C. (2001). An investigation of the potential
existence of “Food Deserts” in rural and urban areas of Northern Ireland.
Agriculture and Human Values, 18, 447-457. doi: 10.1023/A:1015218502547
96
Glanz, K., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., & Frank, L. D. (2007). Nutrition environment
measures survey in stores (NEMS-S): Development and evaluation. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 282-289. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.019
Gottlieb, R., & Fisher, A. (1996). First feed the face: Environmental justice and
community food security. Antipode, 28(2), 193-203.
Haynes, B. J., Randall, J. L., & Reicks, M. (1995). Factors affecting consumption of
fruits and vegetables by low-income families. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 94(11), 1309-1311.
Hilton, K. (1993). Close down the food banks. Canadian Dimension, 27(4), 22-23.
Hobbiss, A., & Reisig, V. (2000). Food deserts and how to tackle them: A study of one
city’s approach. Health Education Journal, 59, 137-149.
Kantor, L. S. (2001). Community food security program improve access. Food Review,
24(1), 20-26.
Laraque-Manty, M. (2001). Food, functioning and justice: From famines to eating
disorders. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(2), 150-167.
Leftin, J. (2010). Trends in supplemental nutrition assistance program participation
rates: 2001 to 2008, 1-123. Retrieved from Food and Nutrition Service [USDA]
website:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/Trends20
01-2008.pdf
97
Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture
and Human Values, 23(1), 89-98. doi:10.1007/s10460-005-5871-5
Mari Gallageher Research and Consulting Group. (2010, April). Food desert and food
balance community fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.fooddesert.net/wpcontent/themes/cleanr/images/FoodDesertFactSheet-revised.pdf
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2010). Hunger in America 2010: National report.
(Research Report No. 06251-600) Retrieved from
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-studies/hunger-study2010.aspx
Millett, B. (1998). Understanding organizations: The dominance of systems theory.
International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 1-12.
nimby. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/nimby
Ohls, J., & Saleem-Ismail, F. (2002). The emergency food assistance system – findings
from the provider survey (Research Report No. 16). Retrieved from http://
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr16-1/fanrr16-1.pdf
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory. In M. Payne (Ed.), Systems and ecological
perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 142-163). Chicago: IL: Lyceum Books, INC.
Poppendieck, J. (1994). Dilemmas of emergency food: A guide for the perplexed.
Journal of Agriculture and human values, 11(4), 69-76.
98
Poppendieck, J. (1998). Sweet charity?: Emergency food and the end of entitlement. New
York: Penguin.
Robinson-Taylor, T. (2011). Bill analysis of food banks: Grants: Voluntary
contributions: Income tax credits. A.B. 152, 1-5. Retrieved from:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/analysis.html?aid=229960
Rose, D. (2010). Access to healthy food: A key focus for research on domestic food
security. The Journal Of Nutrition, 140, 1167-1169. doi: 10.3945/jn.109.113183
Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services. (2010). History. Retrieved from
http://www.Sacramentofoodbank.org/AboutUs/History.aspx
Shimada, T., & Silva, E. (2010). 2010 Nutrition and food insecurity profiles: A snapshot
of nutrition and food insecurity across CA. Retrieved from
http://www.cfpa.net/2010CountyProfiles/Main.html
The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 110-246, 1616 (1988).
U. S. Congress. (1995). Community Food Security Act of 1995, H.R. 2003, 104th Cong.
Summary. Retrieved from: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.2003:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2008). Food security in the United States:
Current population survey food security supplement (CPS-FSS). Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Data/foodsecuritycps/TCHDOC1208.htm
99
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2009a). Access to affordable and nutritious
food: Measuring and understanding deserts and their consequences: Report to
Congress, 1-160. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP306.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2009b). Community food projects:
Program synopsis. Retrieved from
http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/cfp/cfp_synopsis.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2009c). Food security in the United States:
Measuring household food security. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/measurement.htm
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2010a). Community food security initiative
(CFSI). Retrieved from: http://www.attra.org/guide/a_m/cfsi.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2010b). Food distribution fact sheet: The
emergency food assistance program. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/tefap/pfs-tefap.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2010c). Supplemental nutrition assistance
program: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/faqs.htm
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (n.d.). Dietary guidelines. Retrieved
from http://www.mypyramid.gov/guidelines/index.html
100
Young, B. (2009, August 25). Campus master plan: An overview. [Strategic plan with
overview]. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services.