Get Involved - has information about a number of ways that you can learn about and join efforts to end hunger: through donations, volunteer work, advocacy, public education, or a unique community-based method of finding and linking the unique skills of local community residents (Asset-Based Community Development).

Hunger Hits Home (Original Study of 1989)

A Report Prepared by the Hunger Study Group of the Community Services Planning Council

Sacramento, California April 1989

Patti Whitney-Wise,
Chair Hunger Study Group

Callie Hutchison
Writer and Editor

Thomas DiSanto
Editorial Assistant

Nancy Findeisen
Executive Director

Martha Baker
Administrative Assistant

Copyright 1989 by the
Community Services Planning Council
12th Street, Suite 200
SacramentO, CA 95814
(916) 447-7063

Acknowledgements

This study could not have been completed without the support and assistance of many community agencies and volunteers. The Sacramento Regional Foundation provided financial support for the initial phase of the study. California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation staff was available for technical assistance throughout the study. The University of California Cooperative Extension gave extensive support by providing surveys, training interviewers and compiling the data from the surveys.

Special recognition is due for the Action Subcommittee of the Hunger Study Group. This subcommittee explored ways to link food service businesses, i.e., restaurants and caterers, with emergency food providers to distribute unused food from the restaurants and catered events. Legalities and logistics were studied and documented. The result was a listing and a map of the feeding sites, as well as contact information. This information was printed and mailed out with the California Restaurant Association newsletter encouraging members to participate in redistributing surplus food. This information can be updated periodically.

The group also created a one-page poster of available services called the Community Food Guide. This flyer, designed for the person needing assistance, lists available sources of public assistance, emergency aid and the names of public officials to contact if they run into difficulties. This poster can be reproduced and used at service sites or made small enough for personal use.

Thanks to Patti Whitney-Wise who provided the inspiration for the study and the drive to get it done. Thanks also to the many volunteer agencies in Sacramento which participated in the study and which every day furnish food and support to the hungry in Sacramento.

Photographs: The Sacramento Bee; Sacramento Food Bank; Glen Ernst, photographer; Senior Gleaners. Printing provided by Fruitridge Printers and Sacramento Food Bank. Cover design and illustration, Marquez-Hardy Design.

Introduction

In 1988 over 79,000 people received emergency food bags each month, and, additionally, emergency food sites served over 58,000 hot meals to needy individuals and families monthly. It is estimated that there are currently 142,361 people living in poverty in Sacramento, and therefore at high risk of being hungry. For some living in poverty now, finding a job, learning new job skills, completing an education, getting public benefits, or changing living arrangements may mean a permanent improvement in their economic circumstances. But there are also many who, although currently not impoverished, are in precarious financial situations and for whom accident, illness, death, separation, unemployment and other circumstances can mean hungry times. It is also important to acknowledge that there are those for whom poverty will continue and for whom the need for ongoing food assistance will exist.

Hunger undermines a person's health and well-being. Those most at risk are young children and the frail elderly. Over the years public and private programs have been created to meet some of the ongoing food and nutrition needs, particularly for those populations who are the most vulnerable. In recent years new programs, most providing emergency food assistance, have been organized to respond to growing needs. Who are these hungry people? What are the services that exist? Are they meeting the need? Can we help?

Since May 1987, the Hunger Study Group of the Community Services Planning Council (CSPC) of Sacramento has been meeting to explore the scope of the problem of hunger in Sacramento County and to assess possible responses. Members of the Hunger Study Group were selected to include emergency food providers, people familiar with the federal food programs, representatives of community agencies, and business people. (See Appendix C on page 29 for membership roster.) The Hunger Study Group explored the issue, looked at alternatives, and agreed upon an approach. The University of California Cooperative Extension's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) had developed and was implementing a model for collecting community information about hunger. This model included surveys of programs offering emergency food services and of people receiving emergency food assistance. The Hunger Study Group requestedEFNEP assistance in its research on hunger in Sacramento. (See Methodology)

Surveys of providers and recipients were conducted and the information compiled and analyzed. Using this data, along with other information collected by the Hunger Study Group, the following report was created to offer some insight into the problem of hunger in Sacramento County, and to present some possible responses to that need.

Executive Summary

What Do We Know About People Receiving Emergency Food Aid In Sacramento County?

What Do We Know About Private Voluntary Emergency Food Programs?

What Do We Know About Public Food Programs?

What Can We Do About Hunger In The Next Year?

Individuals Can:

• (Continue to) Donate food, funds and time;
• Help start a breakfast or summer food program in local schools.

Churches And Synagogues Can:

• (Continue to) Provide emergency assistance, information, screening and referral services;
• Maintain current information on available services and participate in training volunteers to assist and refer people appropriately.

Emergency Food Providers Can:

• Convene emergency food providers to explore ways to coordinate food solicitation and purchase, transportation, storage, training, referral, and services; to share information; and to solve common problems;
• Establish a computer network to track and refer clients, to record and compile service information, and to track and coordinate food solicitation, purchase and distribution.

Business, Industry And Foundations Can:

• Help design, acquire and maintain a computer network for emergency food providers.

Local Government Can:

• Establish a Joint City/County Hunger Commission by July 1, 1989, to follow up on the recommendations of this study and develop a coordinated community approach to the hunger problem.
• Provide directories and offer training for local churches and emergency food programs to help them assist and refer people appropriately.
• Expand participation in child nutrition programs:
  • Provide start-up and administrative funding and request state and federal money to expand WIC to more of the eligible population.
  • Increase the number of schools participating in the School Breakfast Program.
  • Increase the number of sites where the Summer Food Program is available.

State And Federal Government Can:

• Expand participation in Federal Food Programs by eliminating infrastructure barriers to participation:
  • Make WIC an entitlement program, so that all those who are eligible can be served.
  • Increase the federal reimbursement rate and provide start-up funds for the School Breakfast Program.
  • Allow private non-profit groups to be sponsors in the Summer Food Program and allow areas with 1/3 or more low-income children to
    qualify as sites.
  • Shift from the "Thrifty Food Plan" to the "Low-Cost Food Plan" which provides more adequate long-term nutrition to families on the Food Stamp Program. Simplify the application process.
    

All quotes taken from series "Hunger in California" published in The Sacramento Bee in February and March of 1987.

Survey Results From People Receiving Assistance

What follows is a more in-depth review of the findings of the Hunger Study Group and a more detailed plan of action for the community over the next several years.

Those in need are most frequently families with young children.

The majority of people (69%) receiving emergency food are families with children. Over half of the families using service have two parents.

Forty-four percent (44%) are children under 18 years and 35% are under 12. The percent of children receiving emergency food is significantly above their proportion in the population as a whole. According to the 1987 projections from the 1980 Census, children (0-18 years) were 27% of Sacramento County's population.

With so many young families, the majority (81 %) of those receiving assistance are under age 40. Seven percent (7%) are 60 years or older.

Families using emergency food programs are generally larger than the median family size
for families in Sacramento County. The median family size in Sacramento County, according to 1987 projections from the 1980 Census, was less than three persons. However, about 69% of the families using food closets and 44% of those using soup kitchens have three or more members.

Most of the families get assistance through food closets, although more than one-third (35%) of those using soup kitchens are families.

While the majority of people receiving assistance are White, other ethnic groups are particularly hard-hit by hunger.

About half of the food recipients are White while 30% are Black, 17% are Hispanic and 5% are from other ethnic groups. (Note: The survey instrument prepared by EFNEP did not include any additional specific choices for ethnicity.) This can be compared with the ethnic representation in the general population in Sacramento County which, according to the 1980 Census, were: White 76.7%, Black 7.3%, Hispanic 9.4%, Asian/Pacific Islanders 5%, American Indian 1.1%, and Other .3%.

Lack of employment if not always the reason for need.

Nearly half of the households (48%) have one or more working members. Another 15% are unemployed due to disability. Five percent (5%) of the households are retired. Occupations were reported for ninety-eight (98) adults. Eighty-five percent (85%) of these
adults are currently employed. Of those reporting, only two percent (2%) reported that one or more members of the family are currently receiving unemployment benefits.

Almost everyone receiving assistance has income below the national standards wed to determine financial hardship and/or poverty.

Eighty percent (80%) of those receiving assistance have incomes below the federal poverty level ($11,200 per year for a family of four when the survey was conducted). Another 7% still fall below 130% of poverty, the income eligibility guidelines for AFDC and Food
Stamps ($14,560 per year for a family of four when the survey was conducted).

In one out of every five cases there is no income available from any source including the Food Stamp Program. Government programs designed to alleviate poverty do not prevent families from needing emergency food assistance.

Excluding those with no income, the average family income for families and individuals was $630 a month. With the exception of single individuals who have a somewhat higher per-person income, average income increases with family size. However, the gap between the reported income and the poverty level also tends to increase as the size of the family increases. Thus, in general, the larger the family the poorer it is.

People receiving assistance are permanent residents who rent or own housing in Sacramento county.

Most people (92%) receiving emergency food are residents of Sacramento. At least half have lived in Sacramento County nine years or more.

In nearly half (48%) of the cases those interviewed rent a house or an apartment, and in 11 % of the cases those interviewed own their own home. These living arrangements house 76% of the people covered by the survey. Another 5% of the people rent a room or are staying in a motel. Nineteen percent (19%) of the people are homeless with 13% staying in emergency shelters while 6% stay in tents, in box-cars, on the streets, or under bridges when it rains.

One hundred eleven (111) people report housing costs (rent and utilities) ranging from $77 to $660 a month. The estimated average housing cost for all cases was $366 a month. Rent for those who paid rent averaged $309 a month.

Most of those receiving emergency assistance do not seek food aid often, but some have had to rely on emergency food for several years.

More than half (55%) of the people surveyed reported seeking help from a food closet for the first time in the past year. Twenty-six percent (26%) had been going to food closets for three years or more. The average number of visits was four times a year.

Thirty-nine (39%) of the soup kitchen respondents indicated that this was their first visit to a soup kitchen.

Most people seeking assistance simply do not have food or money to buy food.

Reasons given for seeking food assistance:

• 62% ran out of food or money to purchase food
• 14% applied for but had not received public aid
• 8% said aid was late
• 5% had unusual expenses during the month
• 5% suffered recent unemployment

Worrying about food and getting an adequate diet for their families uses a lot of energy for many people.

More than two-thirds (70%) of those responding said that they "think about where their next meal is coming from" at least some of the time.

Although many parents (65 %) report going without food so their children can eat, 31 % reported that there were occasions when their children went to bed hungry.

Over half (53%) of those receiving emergency food think their diet is less than adequate.

Health care if often postponed in an attempt to keep the family fed.

Forty-six percent (46%) of the respondents report that they or another member of their family are postponing medical care (including dental care) because the family can not afford it. Thirty-two percent (32%) of the people interviewed report that one or more adult members of their family has a chronic illness. In addition, 4% report that a child in their family suffers from a chronic health problem. Eight percent (8%) also report that they (or a family member) are pregnant.

Friends, word-of-mouth, and referrals from Community agencies are the major ways people find out about emergency food programs.

Over one-third (35%) are sent by friends or family members. Nineteen percent (19%) either previously knew about the food program or heard about it through word of mouth. The Department of Social Services accounts for 16% of the referrals to emergency food
providers.

Information about programs and tips on how to "get by" would be welcomed by those receiving emergency food assistance.

Three-fourths of those interviewed expressed interest in learning more about how to participate in government programs. Money-saving shopping tips and information on budgeting are also of interest. Positive response rates for information topics are listed
below:

Survey Results From Agencies Providing Emergency Food

Emergency food assistance is a major activity in Sacramento.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of the 32 agencies responding to the survey provide a three day supply of food by distributing food bags. Twenty-two percent offer on-site meals. A few agencies provide vouchers which can be used to purchase groceries or meals at restaurants, and home-delivered meals are available from several of the agencies.

Providers report distributing an average of 22,100 bags of food per month with 88% of the bags going to families. An estimated 62,976 people received emergency food bags monthly.

Over 25,000 hot meals are served monthly in soup kitchens. About 70% of those receiving meals are men and 30% are women and children.

Over 17,000 hot meals were served monthly in homeless shelters in Sacramento. An estimated 58% of those served were women and children and 42% were men.

Reports from major food closets in 1988 indicate that the numbers of people served increased significantly since the original survey: monthly in 1988, 79,359 people received bags of food, a 26% increase in one year. Additionally, 58,750 hot meals were served, an increase of 39%.

Even with an increase in the number of emergency food providers, the need if still growing.

Although some agencies have been providing emergency food for 100 years, (28%) have been established within the last four years. Some have been in business less than a year. Among the 32 agencies surveyed, the median number of years that an agency had provided food was 10.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of the emergency food providers report an increase in requests within the past two to three years.

Most food providers limit the number of times an individual or family can receive assistance.

Over half (53%) of the agencies limit the number of times food assistance is given. Usually the limit was a number of times per month per individual or family, but some limit to a certain number of times per year, or within a certain geographic area.

Volunteers are the key to services, but more human resources are needed.

The ratio of volunteers to paid staff is 32: 1. Agencies report that almost 3000 regular volunteers work in their programs. These same agencies have a total of 92 paid staff. About 53% of the agencies can use more paid staff. More than three-fourths said they need more volunteers.

Transportation if largely volunteered and inadequate.

Most emergency food providers pick up donated food and accept foods that are delivered to their sites. Almost half use agency-owned vehicles, 65 % report using volunteer or staff vehicles for food pick-ups, and 53% rely on donors to deliver food to them. Almost one-third (31 %) report needing more transportation.

Donated food comes from many sources but produce, protein, and other special foods must be purchased by providers to ensure adequate nutrition.

The chief source of donated food is local church food collection drives. Many providers also receive food donated by retail food markets and by farmers and food processors. Some also receive food from restaurants.

Nearly all food providers reported that they always need more milk products as well as meat, fish, poultry and eggs. They also reported needing more fruits and vegetables. In addition, many continually need non-food items, such as soaps and cleaning supplies.
About 60% of the food closets purchase food from a food closet warehouse which, for a small handling charge, gathers, stores and redistributes surplus foods donated by industry and other sources. Fifteen of the 32 providers in the survey also purchase food supplements at regular retail prices; only two purchase from wholesale or reduced-price markets, and four purchase directly from farmers or food processors.

Food storage facilities are not adequate.

While most food providers indicate that they have cold, freezer, and dry storage, many indicate that these facilities were inadequate. Over one-third (38%) report that their cold storage is not sufficient for their needs. Almost half (44%) indicated that freezer storage is insufficient, and 31% said that dry storage facilities were inadequate. About one-third (31%) of the providers report that the lack of proper storage facilities has resulted in food spoilage.

Food closets report the most severe storage problems with 65% reporting inadequate refrigeration, 56% inadequate freezer storage, and 74% in need of more dry storage space.

Nutrition guidelines and food preparation abilities are sometimes limited.

One-fourth (25%) of the providers have no nutrition guidelines for preparing meals or making up food bags. Another 22% supply nutrition information and food preparation materials to food recipients. Almost half (47%) of the food closets report that people receiving food sometimes have difficulty preparing the food distributed in food bags, primarily if it requires "from scratch" preparations, such as dried beans, flour, or certain vegetables. Food closets also report that sometimes people are unable to use the food available because they do not have cooking equipment.

Education about life skills if also needed for food recipients.

Almost three-fourths (73%) of the providers report that money management information would be very useful for those receiving assistance. Half of the providers report that nutrition classes on site, shopping tips, and information on food stamps and other assistance programs would also be helpful. About one-third (31 %) indicated that food preparation demonstrations would be useful.

Survey Results From Federal Food Programs

Many eligible women, infants, and children are not able to receive WIC benefits.

Despite expansion in recent years WIC serves only 16.3% or 6,032 eligible women, infants and children in Sacramento. Statewide WIC serves an average of 26% of those eligible. In Sacramento, an additional 31,087 needy women, infants and children remain unserved.

WIC (Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is a program designed to provide nutritious foods, counseling and referrals to health care to low-income pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children. Participants in the program must be low-income and at nutritional risk. WIC provides monthly vouchers for foods specifically chosen to provide nutrients usually missing from the diets of low-income women and children. In Sacramento, WIC is available through the County Health Department and the YWCA.

Numerous studies have shown the benefits of the WIC program which include a reduction in the fetal mortality rate, a decrease in the incidence of low birth weight babies, and decreased numbers of pre-term deliveries. WIC has also been shown to be cost effective. One study shows that for every one dollar spent on the prenatal component of WIC, UP to three dollars were saved in hospital costs of low-birth weight babies.

The central source of public food assistance if the Food Stamp Program but many low-income people do not get food stamps.

Those surveyed at emergency food sites report receiving food stamps in amounts ranging from $10 to $242 a month. The average amount was $87. In the majority of cases reported in the survey, food stamps were used up within the first two to two and one-half weeks after receiving them. Thirty-one (31 %) of those receiving emergency food appear to be income eligible but do not receive stamps.

Reasons given by potential food stamp eligibles for not receiving food stamps

Of the survey respondents, 69 appeared income eligible for food stamps but were not receiving them. Respondents gave the following reasons for not receiving food stamps:

Although almost 10% of county residents receive food stamps, more than thirty thousand people who appear income eligible do not get food stamps. The average value of food stamps received per person in Sacramento County is $32.85 per month.

The Food Stamp Program is the only federal program which is intended to serve the entire family unit. It has become an important tool in the fight against domestic hunger -the largest single program, in fact. The federal government pays the entire cost of the food stamps themselves, and shares half of the cost of administering the program in the states.

Food Stamps are coupons that can be used like money to buy food, seeds, and plants to grow food. They cannot be used to purchase tobacco, alcoholic beverages, pet food, or other non- food items. In California individuals with disabilities or low-income seniors who receive SSI (Supplemental Security Income) receive their Food Stamp benefits as part of their monthly check.

Eligibility for the Food Stamp Program if based on the income and resources of the household. The amount of Food Stamps allotted to a household is determined by the number of people in the household and the income they receive. The food stamp allocation assumes that a portion of the household's income is available to use for food purchases. Food stamps are intended only to be a supplement to that income.

School lunches are a well established tradition in most Sacramento schools, but the School Breakfast Program if in only a limited number of schools.

In Sacramento, 60,324 students participate in the school lunch program but only 16,806 receive breakfast.

Of the students receiving lunch, 40,077 (66%) receive free and reduced price meals. The proportion of low-income students in the breakfast program is much higher with 97% receiving breakfast free or at a reduced price.

According to the legislation itself, the National School Lunch Program was permanently authorized in 1946 as a "measure of national security, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children." In 1970, Congress established national guidelines for free and reduced-price school lunches for needy children participating in the program. The School Breakfast program was originally established in 1966 as a pilot program to provide funding for meals to children in 'poor areas and areas where children had to travel a great distance to school." In 1975 the program was expanded with the intention the program "be made available in all schools where it is needed to provide adequate nutrition for children in attendance. "

Numerous studies have documented the fact that a hungry child cannot learn. Good nutrition improves the chances for the child to have access to equal educational opportunity.

Children in day care or a pre-school program can receive better nutrition by participating in the Child Care Food Program but few caretakers use it.

Child care centers which participate in the CCFP serve more food and spend more on food per child. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the centers in the CCFP serve three meals and/or snacks, while only 29% of the non-participating centers serve three meals and/or snacks. Of the 201 identified child care centers, only 32 or about 16% participate in CCFP.

In Sacramento, there is one CCFP sponsor serving about 570 day care homes out of the approximately 2200 day care homes in Sacramento.

The CCFP was established in 1968 to provide the same nutritional benefits as the school meals programs to children in pre-school and day care programs. CCFP provides cash reimbursements to participating day care providers. The meals served must follow USDA guidelines for types and amounts of foods served. The level of reimbursement depends on how many meals and snacks are served by the provider and only cover part of the food cost. Day care homes may also be in the program but most do so through a sponsor. To be a sponsor, an organization must be a public or private non-profit agency.

Participation in the Summer Food Program has declined significantly in the last four years.

Over the last four years the number of meals and snacks has declined substantially while the number of feeding sites has decreased from 75 to 59.

Decline in Summer Food Program from 1985 to 1988

The Summer Food Program is intended for children who are eligible for free and reduced- price meals during the school year. In Sacramento the program is operated by the City Department of Parks and Community Services. To participate, sponsors must prove that the area they serve has a majority of children who would be eligible for free and reduced priced school meals, or they can sign up such children individually.

Senior Nutrition Programs help keep Sacramento seniors fed.

Each year seniors in Sacramento are served over 37,000 meals at congregate dining sites,
and at least 165,000 meals are delivered to their homes.

Nutrition programs for the elderly are designed to provide older Americans with low cost nutritious meals, nutrition education, and an opportunity for social interaction. Anyone 60 years or older may participate. Spouses, regardless of age, are also eligible. Services are supposed to be targeted to two groups, those in "greatest economic" and those in "greatest social need." No one may be denied service on the basis of income alone. In past years the federal funding for these programs has been decreased.

Reductions in the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the commodity distribution program, will create additional difficulties for emergency food providers and needy individuals in Sacramento.

In 1988, 2,149,272 pounds of commodities, including butter, cornmeal, flour, cheese, rice, honey, and dried milk, were distributed. It is unclear how severe the reduction will be this year.

Federal commodity distribution programs began during the Depression years as a way both to help needy families and to dispose of surplus farm products bought by the government through agricultural support programs. TEF AP is the latest version of this effort, and has come to be associated with the term "cheese lines," since large quantities of this product have been distributed since 1981. Actually, a variety of products including dried milk, flour, butter, and honey have been distributed through this USDA program.

Programs which were established to meet emergency needs have become permanent in order to meet the ongoing food needs of people in the community.

Last year the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, provided $291,272 to Sacramento; with these funds, emergency food programs provided 1,310,962 meals.

FEMA works with private service agencies such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and United Way to allocate available funds for emergency food and shelter to agencies in areas with the most pressing needs. Established in 1983 as a "one time emergency allocation," this program has operated every year since then and was incorporated as an ongoing program as part of recent legislation for the homeless.

Recommendations

The Hunger Study Group believes strongly that the value of this report can only be measured by the actions and changes it produces. Eliminating hunger is no easy task. The conditions of poverty which bring hunger are complex, and solutions to the economic balances in our society are controversial. But poverty does not necessarily have to result in hunger. Whose responsibility is it to feed the hungry? How will it be accomplished?

In analyzing and reviewing this information, the Hunger Study Group developed a set of goals and recommendations which involve every member of our community and government at all levels. These recommendations are not a comprehensive list. Many other tasks and approaches could be considered. The Hunger Study Group believes, however, that these recommendations offer a beginning step toward recognizing the shared responsibility to respond to what is a growing and often overwhelming problem in our community.

One of the concerns of the Hunger Study Group is to recognize the limitations of the private emergency food network and its volunteer forces. Often created as a temporary stop-gap measure to respond to emergency needs, these services are now developing into permanent programs. As ongoing programs they require stable and consistent resources to maintain adequate services. In addition, it is necessary to seek approaches which also address the underlying causes and complex needs of hungry people and alleviate the burden on the emergency system. Coordination and cooperation among service providers, policymakers, and all community resources are necessary to serve the needs of the whole
community effectively.

What Individuals Can Do

Goals:

1. Help to improve the quality of life for all people in Sacramento.
2. Understand more about the experience of hunger and poverty.
3. Learn and share skills which contribute to their personal growth and community life.

Recommended Actions:

• Donate funds and food:
  • Give directly to emergency food providers.
  • Support local community and business efforts to raise funds and food.
• Contribute Volunteer Time:
  • Staff an emergency food site.
  • Participate in special projects, such as community gardens, gleaning programs, or food drives.
  • Help start a breakfast or summer food program in your local school
• Urge mayors, city council members, county supervisors, and state and federal lawmakers to support legislation which addresses food and nutrition needs:
  • Write, call or visit.
  • Join a group or organization which works on policy improvements.
• Encourage your neighbors, friends, co-workers, congregation, business, civic, or community group to take action and get involved.

What Churches And Synagogues Can Do

Goals:

1. Understand more about the experience of hunger and poverty.
2. Minister to the needs of hungry people.

Recommended Actions:

• (Continue) to provide emergency assistance, information, screening and referral services to low-income people who come to churches and synagogues for assistance:
  • Maintain current information on available services.
  • Participate in training volunteers to assist and refer people appropriately.
  • Organize and train teams of volunteers to provide these services for your church or synagogue, or in conjunction with other area congregations.
• Encourage members (to continue) to contribute food, funds and volunteer time to emergency food programs:
  • Ask for donations of specific kinds of high nutrition foods (e.g. baby food, peanut butter, canned tuna) -start a "food of the month" club.
  • Organize teams of congregation members who rotate working at food sites.
  • Organize and/or support projects which raise funds for local hunger programs along with international hunger relief and development projects.
• Provide opportunities for members to be educated about causes of domestic poverty, hunger and malnutrition:
  • Organize special events and programs in your church or synagogue.
  • Coordinate educational activities of several churches, synagogues and/or denominations and faiths.
  • Provide a list of available resources -materials, speakers and audio-visuals - for program and group leaders.
• Support and/or join local self-help and development projects which assist those who are able to reduce their dependence on emergency food programs:
  • Identify and adopt a family in need and provide support, job guidance, and other services as needed.
  • Develop a team of volunteers to create and coordinate self-help approaches using congregational contacts and resources.
• Urge mayors, city council members, county supervisors, and state and federal lawmakers to support legislation which addresses food and nutrition needs:
  • Write, call or visit individually or as a group.
  • Join and/or support a group or organization which works on policy improvements.
  • Ask policy makers to attend events and activities where issues and concerns are discussed.

What Emergency Food Providers Can Do

Goals:

1. Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of existing services through improvements in coordination and cooperation.
2. Expand access and availability of services to those in need.
3. Better meet the needs of special populations, such as infants, diabetics, or non- cooking households.
4. Decrease the chronic use of emergency food services.

Recommended Actions:

• Convene emergency food providers to explore common needs and discuss and resolve problems as they arise:
  • Develop ways to coordinate food solicitation, transportation and storage.
    • Create a system for bulk and discount buying.
    • Encourage coordination of retail food donations to benefit all food providers.
  • Develop a list of needed food/volunteers to distribute to congregations, community groups and other contributors.
  • Coordinate training and fund raising activities wherever feasible.
  • Standardize service coverage in accordance with FEMA Board standards so that food bags contain appropriate amounts and types of food for adequate nutrition.
• Establish a computer network to track and refer clients, to record and compile service information, and to track and coordinate food solicitation and distribution.
• Develop programs and services which provide coverage on weekends and/or special end of the month assistance.
• Develop and use guidelines for food packages which reflect the needs of the very young and older people, the lack of cooking facilities, and cultural sensitivity.
• Offer information and assistance to program recipients to help them identify and receive available services:
  • Provide written materials and handouts on existing services.
  • Train volunteers and staff to understand available services and encourage emergency food recipients to participate in these programs.
  • Identify and channel program recipients with special or chronic needs to specific providers set up to address those needs.
• Develop service components which use professional staff and trained volunteers who employ case-management techniques to assess needs on an individual basis and develop and assist with carrying out long-range plans for increasing self-sufficiency.
• Provide opportunities for program recipients to develop self-help and long term living skills such as money management, nutrition, and food purchase and preparation skills.
• Urge mayors, city council members, county supervisors, and state and federal legislators to support legislation which addresses food and nutrition needs:
  • Write, call or visit.
  • Join and/or support a group or organization which works on policy improvements.
  • Ask policy makers to visit and/or participate at emergency food distribution sites.

What Business, Industry, and Foundations Can Do

Goals:

1. Improve the quality of life in tile Sacramento community.
2. Broaden tile base of support available to meet basic human needs.
3. Reduce tile future costs of impaired or delayed physical and psychological development, reduced productivity, and increased health care needs for hungry children and adults.

Reccommended Actions:

• Donate funds and food:
  • Organize special collection activities within the business/industry or in the community.
  • Coordinate with other business/industry groups and professional associates to organize a fund/food drive.
• Donate equipment, space, expertise and other resources needed to expand and enhance services of the public and private food networks:
  • Provide refrigerators, freezers, cooking equipment and storage space for emergency food providers, schools, and/or individuals.
  • Assist with transportation needs.
  • Help design and establish a computer network for providers.
  • Volunteer fundraising/management/training expertise to programs.
• Encourage the donation of leftover food that meets food safety standards.
• Encourage and support the participation of individual employees in food programs and other anti-hunger activities.
• Urge mayors, city council members, county supervisors, and state and federal lawmakers to support legislation which addresses food and nutrition needs and increases the potential for contributions and support from business and industry.

What Government Can Do

Goals:

1. Improve the quality of life in Sacramento, California and the US. as a whole.
2. Help meet basic nutritional needs.
3. Reduce the future costs of impaired or delayed physical and psychological development, reduced productivity, and increased health care needs for hungry children and adults.
4. Reduce tile 1need for emergency food assistance and promote the most efficient use of public and private resources.

Recommended Actions for Local Government:

• Establish a Joint City/County Hunger Commission by July 1, 1989 representing public and private sector food and nutrition programs, business, education, religious organizations, and other concerned groups in the community:
  • Implement the actions called for by this report and develop any further actions that address both short and long-term solutions to hunger in Sacramento.
  • Examine the infrastructure barriers to fully implementing federal food programs and propose needed state and federal changes to allow for maximum use of the programs.
  • Examine the long-range capability of primarily voluntary services.
  • Educate the community about local needs.
  • Mobilize community resources to address the problem.
• Provide directories and offer training for local churches and emergency food programs to help them assist and refer people appropriately.
• Fund a Public Health Nutritionist to help coordinate all of these services and build links between emergency services and other food and income-support programs.
• Provide immediate access to information on available food closets, feeding sites, shelters, food stamps and other aid programs through a free access number.
• Expand participation in child nutrition programs:
  • Provide start-up and administrative funding and request state and federal money to expand WIC to more of the eligible population.
  • Increase the number of schools participating in the School Breakfast Program.
  • Provide technical assistance and support to increase the number of child care programs participating in the Child Care Food Program.
  • Increase the number of sites where the Summer Food Program is available.
• Increase accessibility to the Food Stamp Program:
  • Provide food stamp information at all emergency food program sites.
  • Train and use retired professionals as volunteers to help screen and explain the application process to potential food stamp recipients.
  • Use the newly created federal option to decrease and simplify monthly reporting.
  • Explore the need for and feasibility of creating a Food Stamp Hotline.
• Improve the communication and coordination of services related to food and nutrition:
  • Develop training for all public and private service providers to strengthen the existing referral network.
  • Conduct a food and nutrition program outreach campaign.
• Provide county and city land for community gardens, and include fruit and vegetable plants in public landscaping.
• Evaluate the adequacy of food and nutrition service available for seniors.

Recommended Actions for State and Federal government:

• Individuals and local policymakers should advocate for the following infrastructure changes in the Federal Food Programs:
• Increase outreach, make eligibility requirements less restrictive, and increase benefit levels for the Food Stamp Program:
  • Fund outreach to all Americans; California should match federal funds now available for this purpose.
  • Shift from the "Thrifty Food Plan" (the USDA approved scale upon which the amount of food stamps available to a household is determined) to the "Low Cost Food Plan" which provides more adequate long-term nutrition.
  • Revise or eliminate cumbersome reporting and documentation requirements and simplify application forms.
  • Increase funding for WIC (Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children):
  • Supplement federal funds with state dollars.
  • Make WIC an entitlement program, so that all those who are eligible can be served.
• Increase the federal reimbursement rate for the School Breakfast Program and provide start-up funds for schools implementing the program.
• Expand the Child Care Food Program:
  • Reduce paperwork requirements.
  • Add a meal/snack for all participating programs.
• Expand the Summer Food Program:
  • Allow private non-profit groups to be sponsors.
  • Allow areas with 1/3 or more low-income children to qualify as sites.
  • Provide a Summer Food Program equivalent for year round schools during school breaks.

Appendix A

Summary Of Major Food Programs In Sacramento County

Appendix B

Methodology

A pre-tested, standardized, six page questionnaire, developed by The University of California Cooperative Extension's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), was used to survey emergency food providers and those receiving emergency food assistance. The interviewers were recruited by the member of the Hunger Study Group and were trained in interview techniques and in the use of the questionnaire.Thirty-two (32) of the major emergency food providers were interviewed in August and September of 1987.

Surveys were administered to 173 people receiving assistance from food closets and soup kitchens. A sampling technique, which considered location, size and type of service, was used to select the 17 emergency food provider sites where these interviews were conducted. Sixty-two (62) of the interviews were conducted at soup kitchens and shelters (programs which distribute grocery items or vouchers for purchasing groceries). Interviews of programs' participants were conducted in the months of March and April 1988.
Individuals to be interviewed were chosen at random at the program sites. Interviews were requested after the participants had received their meal or been given assistance. In all cases, people were informed that the interview was anonymous, that it would have no effect on any services or benefits they might receive, and that they were not required to participate or answer any questions they preferred not to answer. As needed, interviews were conducted in Spanish. Forty-one clients (41) refused to participate and, based on observation, no consistent pattern of age, sex, race or ethnicity was detected among those who refused.

It should be noted that one food site which was selected for interviews based on its service to Hispanic residents was closed at the time; therefore, no interviews were conducted at this site. The number of interviews to be administered at this site was 12, or 6% of the total number of surveys to be completed in this sampling. Thus, some under-representation from the perspective of the Hispanic population may exist in this report.

Completed questionnaires from both providers and recipients were entered into a computer program and the results were compiled and analyzed by EFNEP researchers at UC Berkeley. For the survey of those receiving assistance, the size of the sample and the sampling techniques were designed to obtain a representative picture of the families and individuals who request help from emergency food programs. It cannot be assumed that the results apply to other Sacramento County residents who may suffer chronic or episodic food shortages and do not seek assistance from food programs. In interpreting the data from the program participant survey, two different bases were used to calculate percentages reported: the number of cases and the total number of people the cases represent. Each of the 173 individuals interviewed represents a single case regardless of the size of the family unit. The total number of people, single individuals and total family members associated with the interviewed person, was 423.

In addition to emergency food providers and participants, the Hunger Study Group also surveyed public food programs, including WIC (Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, Children), Food Stamps school meals, the Child Care Food Program (CCFP), and the Summer Food Program.

Notes:

The expression average. when used in this report (e.g., the average income), refers to the statistical mean (e.g., sum of incomes reported divided by the total number of cases reporting income). In a few instances, which are noted in the text, the statistical median was substituted for the mean when this figure better represented the "average" situation of the clients in the study. This was generally done in situations in which one or two extreme cases would distort the mean average. The median is calculated by determining the midpoint from which half of the cases fall above and half below.

Appendix C

Hunger Study Group

Survey work was conducted by Patti Whitney-Wise, Martha Baker, Maxine Broussard-Phillips (CSPC Board of Directors), Stephen Whitney-Wise, Lakshmi Sreenivasen, Mona Mansfield, Carolyn Fernandez, Maria Garcia, Crystal Rocks, Beverly Mattson, and Barbara Taylor.

Action Subcommittee Co-Chairs:

* Steering Committee Member

[Top]