hunger in america 2014 full report

Transcript

1

2 Hunger in America 2014 National Report P repared for Feeding America Authors Nancy S. Weinfield, PhD, Westat Gregory Mills, PhD, Urban Institute Christine Borger, PhD, Westat Maeve Gearing, PhD, Urban Institute Theodore Macaluso, PhD, consultant Jill Montaquila, PhD, Westat Sheila Zedlewski, Urban Institute August 2014 Prepared for: Prepared by: he Urban Institute t Westat and Feeding America 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60601 Westat ® An Employee - Owned Research Corporation 1600 Research Boulevard 3129 Rockville, Maryland 20850 - (301) 251 - 1500 Urban Institute 2100 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037

3 Contents Table of Page Chapter ... ... xiv Acknowledgments ... Introduction and Background ... ... ... 1 1 1.1 The Charitable Food Assistance Network Serves a Critical ... ... ... 1 Need ... The Weak Economy Has Increased Demand for Food 1.2 4 Assistance ... ... ... 1.3 How the Feeding America Network Delivers Food Assistance ... ... ... 5 1.4 The Hunger in America 2014 Study Updates the Public ... 8 on the Use of Charitable Food Assistance ... Meeting the Challenge of Collecting Data about Food Programs 2 ... ... ... ... 10 and Clients Key Findings ... ... ... ... 10 Study and Sample Design ... ... ... 11 2.1 Instrument Development 2.1.1 ... 11 ... 14 ... ... ... Study Design 2.1.2 2.1.3 ... ... 17 Program Type Definitions Agency Survey Implementation ... ... 20 2.2 ... Collecting Data from Partner Agencies 20 2.2.1 2.2.2 Agency Survey Data Collection ... ... 21 Agency Survey Resource Materials ... ... 22 2.2.3 2.2.4 Agency Survey Field Period ... ... 22 ... ... 23 Agency Survey Monitoring 2.2.5 Training of Food Bank Hunger Study Coordinators and 2.3 Volunteer Data Collectors ... ... ... 23 2.4 Client Survey Implementation ... ... 24 Client Survey Translation 2.4.1 ... ... 24 2.4.2 Cli ent Data Collection Procedures ... ... 25 2.4.3 Client Survey Field Period ... ... 26 ... Client Survey Resources ... 27 2.4.4 Hunger in America 2014 National Report iii

4 Contents (continued) Chapter Page Response Rates 2.5 ... ... 28 ... 2.5.1 Characteristics of Client Survey Respondents ... 31 Methodological Considerations in Understanding and 2.6 Interpreting Findings ... ... ... 33 2.6.1 Changes in Program Types between HIA 2010 33 and HIA 2014 ... ... ... 2.6.2 Underrepresentation of Children Served by the ... Feeding America Network 33 ... 2.6.3 Survey Respondents, Their Households, and Food Program Clients ... ... 34 ... 2.6.4 Agency List Challenges ... 34 2.6.5 Volunteer Data Collection Efforts ... ... 35 Natural Disasters ... ... .. 35 2.6.6 Changes from Past Hunger in America Studies 2.6.7 ... ... to Hunger in America 2014 36 2.7 ... ... Summary of Analytical Approach 37 Weighting Survey Data ... ... 38 2.7.1 ... Valid Survey Responses ... 2.7.2 39 2.7.3 Tabular Presentation ... ... 39 Client Counts ... ... ... 40 2.7.4 Sampling Challenges and Practical Constraints 2.7.5 ... 41 ... Affecting Precision of Estimates 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network ... ... 44 Key Findings ... ... ... ... 44 3.1 Feeding America’s Network Is Large and Multifaceted ... 44 Organization of the Network ... ... 44 3.1.1 3.1.2 Number and Types of Partner Agencies ... 45 Types of Programs Operated by the Agencies ... 48 3.1.3 Hunger in America 2014 National Report iv

5 Contents (continued) Page Chapter e Agencies’ Programs Provide Hunger - Relief Services 3.2 Th ... to Clients ... 53 ... Agency Oversight and Paid Staff ... ... 3.2.1 54 3.2.2 Program Volunteers ... ... 55 Sources of Food — Food Bank, Donations, 3.2.3 ... Purchasing ... 58 ... 3.2.4 Language Diversity of Food Program Clients ... 61 3.2.5 ... ... 62 Restrictions on Service Receipt 3.2.6 ... 62 Programs’ Ability to Serve Clients ... 3.3 Partner Agencies Provide Other Food - Related and Non - Food Services ... ... ... 65 Services Related to Government Programs ... 65 3.3.1 3.3.2 Agency Funding ... ... ... 72 ... Feeding America Clients and Their Households Characteristics of 4 78 Key Findings ... ... ... ... 78 Estimating Clients Served by Feeding America ... 4.1 80 4.1.1 Method for Computing Client Count Estimates ... 81 4.1.2 Estimates of Clients in the Feeding America Network ... ... ... 84 4.1.3 Selected De mographic Characteristics of ... 86 Feeding America Clients ... Interpreting Changes in Client Estimates from 4.1.4 2010 to 2014 ... ... ... 88 4.2 Feeding America Clients Come from a Diverse Set of Households ... ... ... 89 ... 4.2.1 Household Size of Clients ... 90 ... 4.2.2 d Members ... Ages of Househol 92 4.2.3 Single and Multiple Race/Ethnicity Client Households ... ... ... 93 95 Educational Attainment in Client Households ... 4.2.4 Hunger in America 2014 National Report v

6 Contents (continued) Page Chapter ... Military Service Members 96 4.2.5 Households with 4.2.6 Spoken at Home ... ... 98 Languages Housing Characteristics 4.2.7 ... ... 99 ... 106 4.3 Work, School, and Barriers and Bridges to Work 4.3.1 Household Employment ... ... 107 4.3.2 Full - Time and Part - Time Work ... ... 108 4.3.3 ... 109 Being Unemployed or Out of the Workforce ers and Bridges to Employment ... 4.3.4 113 Potential Barri 4.4 Health, Income, and Poverty ... ... 116 Health Status and Health Conditions ... 117 4.4.1 4.4.2 Health Insurance and Unpaid Medical Bills ... 120 121 ... ... Income and Poverty 4.4.3 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance ... ... 131 ... ... ... ... 131 Key Findings 5.1 Securing Enough Food for the Household ... ... 132 5.1.1 Household Food Security Status ... 132 ... 5.1.2 Making Difficult Decisions about Buying Food vs. Paying for Other Necessities ... ... 134 5.1.3 Needing to Plan for Food Assistance to Meet a 136 ... ... ... hly Budget Mont 5.2 Client Households’ Use of Other Food Assistance ... 137 5.2.1 Client Households’ Use of SNAP ... ... 139 5.2.1.1 Exhaustion of SNAP Benefits ... 141 5.2.1.2 Reasons Why Clients Do Not Receive SNAP ... ... ... 143 5.2.2 Receipt of Nutrition Assistance Focus ed on 147 ... ... ... Children Hunger in America 2014 National Report vi

7 Contents (continued) Page Chapter ... 149 5.3 Households’ Engagement in Coping Strategies Coping Strategies to Get Enough Food ... 150 5.3.1 6 Summary of Findings ... ... ... 154 6.1 Completing a National Profile of the Feeding America Its Clients ... Network and ... 155 ... 6.1.1 ... 155 Innovations in Hunger in America 2014 6.1.2 Select Challenges in Hunger in America 2014 ... 155 6.2 The Feeding America Network of Services ... ... 157 Range of Partner Agencies and Programs ... 157 6.2.1 6.2.2 Partner Agency and Program Resources ... 157 6.3 Food Assistance Clients and Their Households Are Diverse 158 ... ... ... ... Client and Household Demographic 6.3.1 ... ... ... 158 Characteristics Challenges Client Households Face ... ... 6.3.2 159 6.3.3 Client Households’ Food Security, Use of Food 160 Assistance, and Other Coping Strategies ... Tables 2 - 1 Client surveys administered by language ... ... 24 ... ... 2 27 2 - Completed client surveys by month ... - 3 Unweighted distribution of program visits by program category 2 30 ... 2 - 4 Survey respondents by age group ... ... 31 ... - 5 Survey respondents by gender 2 ... ... 32 32 Survey respondents by race and ethnicity ... ... 2 - 6 Hunger in America 2014 National Report vii

8 Contents (continued) Tables (continued) Page 3 - 1 Distribution of agencies by subtype ... ... . 47 - 2 Distribution of agencies by food or non - food programs ... 3 48 3 - 3 Distribution of agencies by meal or grocery programs, among agencies with food programs ... ... ... 49 - 4 Distribution of programs by type of food or non - food program ... 3 49 3 - 5 Distribution of meal programs by subtype, categorized by ... program target age group ... ... 51 - 6 Distribution o f grocery programs by subtype, categorized by 3 program target age group ... ... ... 52 Agencies employing paid staff and the median number of full - 3 - 7 ... 55 ... time equivalent paid staff, by type of agency 8 Total number of volunteers and total hours volunteered per - 3 nth, among programs with volunteers ... mo 56 ... 3 - 9 Median number of volunteers and median number of hours volunteered per program in an average month, among programs with volunteers ... ... ... ... 56 3 - 10 Age range of volunteers, among programs with volunteers during the past 12 months ... ... ... 57 3 Programs reporting difficulty obtaining and retaining volunteers 11 - by degree of difficulty, among programs with volunteers during 58 ... ... ... the past 12 months 3 - 12 Average percentage of total food distributed during the past 12 months, by source ... ... ... 59 - 13 Frequently purchased items in the past 12 months, by source ... 3 60 3 - 14 Programs reporting food donations during the past 12 months, 61 ... ... ... ... by source Hunger in America 2014 National Report viii

9 Contents (continued) (continued) Page Tables 3 15 Programs indicating a change in limitati ons on clients’ frequency - ... ... ... 62 of use during the past 12 months 3 16 Programs reporting changes in the number of clients compared - ... ... ... to the prior year 63 ... 3 - 17 Programs reporting the degree to which they had food available to meet needs of clients during the past 12 months ... ... 64 3 1 8 Programs turning clients away for any reason during the past 12 - ... ... ... months 64 ... 3 - 19 Agencies providing services related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and subtypes of services offered ... ... ... ... 66 - 20 Agencies reporting level of funding, by source of funds 3 ... 73 74 ... Agencies reporting select reductions during the past 12 months 21 - 3 3 22 Agencies reporting select reasons for making reductions, among - 75 agencies that reported reductions during the past 12 months ... - 23 Agencies reporting challenges associated with continuing to 3 provide services, among agencies that reported reductions during the past 12 months ... ... ... 77 - 1 Estimates of the number of clients served by program type 4 ... 85 ... 87 ristics of Feeding America clients 4 - 2 Selected demographic characte ... - 3 Client household composition ... 4 ... 90 4 - 4 Client households by size ... ... ... 91 - 5 Client households containing members in select age ranges 4 ... 92 ... 94 ... Single and multiple race/ethnicity households 4 - 6 Hunger in America 2014 National Report ix

10 Contents (continued) (continued) Page Tables - Client households by highest educational attainment, among adult 4 7 ... ... household members 95 ... - 8 Client household military service 4 ... ... ... 97 - Client households by primary language(s) spoken in household 4 9 ... ... among adults ... 98 ... 4 - 10 Client households by type of nontemporary housing ... ... 100 4 11 Client households by type of temporary housing ... ... - 101 4 - 12 Client households with various housing payment arrangements, among clients residing in nontemporary housing ... ... 103 - 13 Respondents by recent hou sing transitions 4 ... ... 104 14 4 105 ... Client households by cooking or cold storage capacity at home - - 15 Client households by most employed person in the past 4 12 months ... ... ... ... 108 4 - 16 Client households by typical hours worked per week, among households with employ ... ... 109 ment in the past 12 months 4 - 17 Client households by duration without employment, among client households where most employed person is currently not working ... ... ... ... 111 - 4 Client households’ work status in the past four weeks; and 18 reasons for not lookin g for work, among client households where formerly most employed person is now out of the workforce ... 112 4 - 19 Respondents responsible for grandchildren in the household ... 114 - 20 Client households with household member(s) released from 4 prison in the past 12 months ... ... ... 114 ... 116 ... Client households by adult student status 4 - 21 Hunger in America 2014 National Report x

11 Contents (continued) (continued) Page Tables 4 22 Client households by health status of respondent and presence of - ... ... 118 another household member in poor health 4 23 Client households with member(s) having select health conditions ... - 119 4 - 24 Client households in which no one has health insurance, and client households with unpaid medical bills ... ... 121 4 25 All client households by reported monthly income ranges, and - me as a percentage of the poverty level monthly household inco ... 123 4 - 26 Households with at least one child by reported monthly income ranges, and monthly household income as a percentage of the 124 ... ... ... ... poverty level 4 - 27 Households with at least one senior by reported monthly in come ranges, and monthly household income as a percentage of the poverty level ... 125 ... ... ... 28 All client households by reported annual income ranges, and - 4 ... 127 annual household income as a percentage of the poverty level Client households with at least - 29 one child by reported annual 4 income ranges, and annual household income as a percentage of ... ... ... .. the poverty level 128 4 - 30 Client households with at least one senior by reported annual household income as a percentage of income ranges, and annual .. ... ... 129 ... the poverty level ... - 1 Client households by level of food security 5 ... 133 5 - 2 Client households reporting frequency of choosing between food and other necessities in the past 12 months ... ... 135 5 - 3 Client households reporting different strategies for food ... ... 137 ... ... assistance Hunger in America 2014 National Report xi

12 Contents (continued) (continued) Page Tables 5 4 Client households by reported current receipt of SNAP benefits, - and among those not currently receiving benefits, whether or not ... ... ... they have applied 140 - Client households by reported usual time to exhaustion of SNAP 5 5 benefits, among households receiving SNAP benefits . 142 ... 5 - 6 Client households reporting select reasons for not applying for SNAP benefits, among households that have never applied 144 ... - 7 Client households reporting not having qual ified for SNAP 5 benefits at some point, among households that have ever applied, and main reason for not qualifying ... ... .. 145 - 8 Client households by potential income eligibility for SNAP 5 benefits, among households not receiving SNAP benefits ... 146 5 - 9 Client households reporting SNAP benefits stopping, among households that have ever applied, and main reason for benefits 147 ... ... ... ... stopping 10 Client households by reported current receipt of WIC benefits ... - 148 5 - 11 5 Client household participation in programs targe ted at children other than WIC, among households with school - aged children ... 149 Client households by coping strategies used to get enough food 5 - 12 ... 151 ... ... in the past 12 months - 13 Client households reporting number of coping strategies used to 5 get enough food in the past 12 months ... ... 153 Figures - 1 Sources of food and channels of food distribution in the Feeding 1 America network ... ... ... . 7 13 Tablet computers ready for data collection at a food program site ... 2 - 1 Hunger in America 2014 National Report xii

13 Contents (continued) Figures (continued) Page 2 - 2 Multistage design of Hunger in America 2014 ... ... 16 - 3 Participation of the Feeding America network in Hunger in 2 America 2014 ... ... ... ... 18 20 2 - 4 Program type categorizations used in Hunger in America 2014 ... 1 Hunger in America 2014 food bank service areas ... - 3 46 ... 3 - 2 Distribution of meal and grocery programs, among food ... programs ... ... ... 50 3 - 3 Outreach approach among agencies offering SNAP - related 67 services ... ... ... ... 4 3 - related services, among agencies - Reasons for not offering SNAP ... ... ... 68 reporting not offering them 3 - 5 Agenc ies providing assistance with specific government programs other than SNAP ... ... ... 69 3 - 6 Agencies providing assistance with government programs other 70 than SNAP ... ... ... ... 7 - 3 Agencies providing information about services in more than one language, by type of agency ... ... ... 72 3 - 8 Agencies reporting level of anxiety associated with continuing to provide services, among agencies that reported reductions during the past 12 months ... ... ... 76 - 1 Client households in temporary versus nontemporary housing ... 4 99 4 - 2 Employment status in the past four weeks of the most employed ... ... ... 110 ... person Hunger in America 2014 National Report xiii

14 Acknowledgments e Hunger in America 2014 support and vision of the cor We would like to acknowledge the strong team at Feeding America: Maura Daly, Elaine Waxman, PhD, Emily Engelhard, Theresa DelVecchio Dys, Monica Hake, Amaris Kinne, Brittany Morgan, Meghan O’Leary, and David Watsula. The ct was also much improved through sound advice from the Technical Advisory quality of the produ Group (TAG) of Feeding America as well as through review of the report by outside experts. Technical Advisory Group of Feeding America Craig Gundersen, PhD, Endowed Professor, Univ ersity of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign Alison Jacknowitz, PhD, Associate Professor, American University Robert Santos, Chief Methodologist, Urban Institute Expert Reviewers John Cook, PhD, Associate Professor, Boston University Associate Professor, University of Missouri Colleen Heflin, PhD, Dean Jolliffe, PhD, Senior Economist, The World Bank Development Research Group Rich Lucas, Acting Associate Administrator, USDA Food and Nutrition Service Nancy Mathiowetz, PhD, Professor, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Molly Scott, Senior Research Associate, Urban Institute Hilary Seligman, MD, Assistant Professor, University of California San Francisco Anita Singh, PhD, Branch Chief, USDA Food and Nutrition Service SNAP Evaluation Branch , PhD, Economist, USDA Economic Research Service Laura Tiehen At Westat, several staff made critical contributions throughout the course of the study, especially Montaquila , PhD. During data collection, Christine Borger , PhD, and Nancy Weinfield, PhD, Jill Julie Bollme r, PhD and Roline Milfort, PhD spent long hours obtaining necessary information from the food banks and providing feedback to them throughout the sampling process. Additional , Lauren Faulkner support came from Susan Acker, Bryan Davis, Matthew English, lliam Frey, PhD, Beth Hintz, Jennifer Kawata, Laurie May, PhD, Martha Palan, Jarnee Riley, Beth Wi . , and many others Slotman At the Urban Institute, Maeve Gearing, PhD, Gregory Mills, PhD, Tracy Vericker, PhD, and Sheila l report products, providing their expertise, writing, and analysis. Zedlewski all contributed to the fina . Programming support was provided by Sybil Mendonca The members of the Feeding America Report Review Committee, representing both Feeding d the TAG, provided valuable feedback and America National Office Staff, network staff, an National Report Hunger in America 2014 xiv

15 Acknowledgements revisions during the review phase of the study. We also acknowledge the contributions of the Feeding America Member Advisory Committee (MAC) who provided support throughout the entirety of the study. Committee Report Review Joanne Batson, Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia Canton Regional Foodbank - Katie Carver, Akron Helen Costello, New Hampshire Food Bank Angela DePaul, Feeding America Jessica Hager, Feeding America Sophie Milam, Feeding America Ami McReynolds, Fee ding America Carol Tienken, The Greater Boston Food Bank Eleni Towns, Feeding America Feeding America Member Advisory Committee Joanne Batson, Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia Jeff Dronkers, Los Angeles Regional Food Bank JC Dwyer, Texas Food Bank Network Dan Flowers, Akron - Canton Regional Foodbank Melanie Gosselin, New Hampshire Food Bank South Food Bank - Greer, Mid - Estella Mayhue Carol Tienken, The Greater Boston Food Bank Jodi Tyson, Three Square Food Bank David Weaver, South Plains Food Bank support came from other members of the Feeding America national office, including Additional - Emily Basten, Lisa Davis, Adam Dewey, Michael Kato, Elizabeth Rowan Chandler, and Amy Satoh. and volunteers at We would also like to acknowledge and extend our sincere gratitude to the staff each of the participating food banks, agencies, and programs, who dedicated their time and efforts and were integral to the implementation of the study in the field. Hunger in America study to the nts who graciously agreed to share their stories with us Finally, we acknowledge each of the clie through participation in the Client Survey. Their contributions made this study possible. Hunger in America 2014 National Report xv

16 1 Introduction and Background Feeding America, the nation’s leading domestic hunger - relief organization, has conducted the most comprehensive study of hunger in America every four years since 1993. Like the prior studies, Hunger in America 2014 (HIA 2014) , the latest iteration, documents the critical role that the charitable food assistance network plays in supporting struggling families in the United States. Study results are based on surveys of food program s in the charitable food assistance network supported 1 In addition by Feeding America, and clients that access services through that network in 2012 - 2013. to this report on the Feeding America national network, this study has resulted in 42 state reports a nd 196 food bank reports detailing network activities on local levels. The current assessment occurs in a period with historically high demand for food assistance. 2 Unemployment and poverty rates have remained high since the Great Recession of 2008, and t he number of households receiving nutrition assistance from the federal government’s Supplemental 3 Nutrition Assistance Program has increased by approximately 50 percent between 2009 and 2013. 14 finds an increased number of Demand for charitable food assistance has also expanded. HIA 20 individuals relying on charitable assistance to access nutritious foods for themselves and their families. 1.1 The Charitable Food Assistance Network Serves a Critical Need The federal government annually measures household food security – defined as all people in a – a household having enough food for an active healthy life at all times nd distinguishes four levels of 1 a 2014 (HIA 2014) Agency Survey. For the All identified programs were invited to participate in the Hunger in Americ Client Survey , data collection visits were not conducted at programs that exclusively serve adults with severe cognitive l health disabilities, children , or other confidential populations such as victims of domestic violence . or menta 2 Officially the recession lasted from December 2007 through June 2009 . See http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html . 3 www.fns.usda.gov/pd/16SNAPpartHH.htm . SNAP caseload statistics are from Hunger in America 2014 National Report 1

17 1 Introduction and Background 4 Households classified as having low or very low food securi food security from high to very low. ty are combined into the category of food insecure. In 2012, more than one in seven (17.6 million) U.S. 5 households experienced food insecurity at some time during the year. All of these households experienced limited or uncertain access to adequate food i ncluding reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. About 7 million of these households had members who went hungry or skipped meals, an indication of very low food security. Rates of food insecurity are particularly ith incomes near or below the federal poverty level and in single parent high in households w - households with children. Although about half of those who are food insecure live in White, non Hispanic households, the rate of food insecurity is about twice as high among Black and - 6 Hispanic households. Federal food assistance programs help to alleviate hunger and poor nutrition for millions of food - insecure individuals. These programs are targeted at low - income households, with specific programs targeting vulnerable populations li ke children, seniors, and pregnant or post - partum women. About insecure households participate in one or more of the three largest federal food and - six in 10 food nutrition assistance programs: SNAP ) ; the Spec ial the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants , and Children (WIC); and the National School 7 Lunch Program (NSLP). nutrition P assistance program. the Food Stamp rogram, is the largest SNAP, formerly known as income households rece - Participating low ive monthly SNAP benefit allotments in the form of electronic debit cards (also known as EBT, or electronic benefit transfer). While SNAP is intended - income households, it is not targeted for any specific subgroup within that population. for low SNAP benef its can be redeemed only at authorized retailers and are limited to the purchase of food 4 The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines four levels of food security. Hig h food security indicates no reported food - access problems. Marginal food security indicates one or two reported problems that are typically anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house, but with little or no indication of changes in diet s or food intake. Low food security indicates reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet and indicates little or no reduced food intake. Very low food security indicates reports of multiple disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intak e. The food security measure used in HIA 2014 combines high and marginal food security into a single category. - - in - - us/definitions the D efinitions are from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food - nutrition - assistance/food - security - food - security.aspx#.U76oj_ldW - g of 5 Alicia Coleman Jensen, Mark Nord, and Anita Singh - . (2013). Household Food Security in the United Stat es in 2012 , ERR - 155 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service), /err155.aspx report - research - Earlier years are available at the . http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err - economic same web site. 6 Ibid., Table 2, p. 13. 7 Ibid., Table 2, p. 13. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 2

18 1 Introduction and Background items for use at home as well as seeds and plants to produce food. The WIC program offers - income pregnant and post - pa rtum women, and nutrition education and supplemental foods to low children up to age five who are at nutritional risk. NSLP is a federal meal program that provides a 8 nutritionally balanced free or reduced - price lunch to eligible children at school. These programs, nutrition safety net, not only alleviate hunger, they also along with other aspects of the federal improve nutrition and health outcomes. For individuals and families who receive federal nutrition ng assistance, charitable food assistance may serve as a complement to federal assistance in alleviati hunger. Nonetheless, despite providing critical assistance, federal nutrition assistance programs do 9 not reach everyone at risk of hunger in the United States. For example, an estimated 27 percent of ncomes above the standard eligibility insecure population in 2012 had household i - the food grams. F or these individuals and families, charitable thresholds for federal nutrition assistance pro food assistance may be the only available source of support. Feeding America supports a nationwide network of food b anks that help to combat hunger through . At the coordinated efforts with affiliated agencies in all 50 states , Washington DC, and Puerto Rico retailers , and produce national level, Feeding America secures food from corporate manufacturers , suppliers, and f acilitates the acquisition of government food supplies by the food banks, distributing a total of more than three billion pounds of food and grocery products annually. Additionally, Feeding America provides more than $30 million worth of grants to support hunger - local anti initiatives in communities nationwide. Feeding America also provides member food banks with technical assistance, including support to maximize participation in SNAP and other previously mentioned federal nutrition assistance programs. In dividual food banks also independently solicit food and financial donations from regional manufacturers, retailers, and businesses. The food banks - work with a network of agencies to support local hunger relief programs by distributing food and by raising a wareness about the scope of hunger within their service areas. 8 . www.fns.usda.gov Program descriptions from 9 Numerous recent studies show how f ederal food assistance programs reduce food insecurity. For example, a 2013 study finds that participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for about six months is associated with a 4.6 percent decrease in the number of food - insecure households; longer participation further reduces food insecurity. See James Mabli, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos . (2013). Measuring the Effect (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Partici pation on Food Security ean Jolliffe. Gundersen, and D (2012). Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service). Brent Kreider, J ohn V. Pepper, C raig “Identifying the Effects of SNAP (Food Stamps) on Child Health Outcomes When Participation is Endogeno us and Misreported.” Journal of the American Statistical Association , 107 (499) : 958 - 975. Published studies by Caroline Ratcliffe, “How Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Signe - . (2011). Mary McKernan, and Sisi Zhang lton Reduce Food Insecur American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 93 (4): 1082 - 1098; and by E ity?” Mykerezi and B radford F . Mills . (2010). “The Impact of Food Stamp Program Participation on Household Food Insecurity,” 9 , - 92 (5) 1391 show that SNAP participation substantially decreases the risk : 137 American Journal of Agricultural Economics of household food insecurity. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 3

19 1 Introduction and Background 1.2 The Weak Economy Has Increased Demand for Food Assistance The economy has experienced an unusually slow recovery since the deep recession in 2008 and d 15.1 percent in 2010, the highest rate since 1993. The 2009. The nation’s poverty rate reache poverty rate remained at 15 percent in 2012 with 46.5 million people living in poverty. This is the 10 largest number living in poverty since statistics were first published more than 50 years ago. Su stained high poverty rates arise in part from high unemployment and falling household incomes. The U.S. unemployment rate exceeded 7.0 percent for five years between late 2008 and late 2013 (about 11 million people in any given month), the longest period o f high unemployment in 11 70 years. While the unemployment rate indicates that a large number of people cannot find jobs, many others are employed part time because they cannot find full - time work. The government’s measure of underemployment that includes al l of these groups averaged 14 percent in fiscal year 12 On average, about 24 million people 2013, compared to a prerecession rate of 8.4 percent in 2007. were underemployed in 2013. Additionally, others may work full time but due to low wages their earnings do not lift them above the poverty line. Perhaps not surprisingly, real household income 13 dropped 8.3 percent between 2007 and 2012. Poverty, unemployment, and income, along with other demographic characteristics, are key drivers of individual and househol d food insecurity across 14 the country. These economic trends have contributed to rapid growth in the numbers of households seeking and receiving food assistance. The number of people participating in SNAP, the largest federal food 10 Statistics for 2012 (the latest data available) are from Carmen DeNavas - Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica , Current Population Survey ” : 2012. h Insurance Coverage in the United States “Income, Poverty, and Healt . (2013). Smith 60 - 245 (Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau). Poverty statistics for additional years are from the same source and www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data . found at 11 Congressional Budget Office, “What Accounts for the Slow Growth of the Economy After the Recession?” (Washington, DC: Author, November 14, 2012) , and data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 . 12 The measure of labor underutilization includes the total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached t http://www.bls.gov/CPS/ . o the labor force, found at 13 Walt et al., “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage DeNavas - in the United States: 2012 .” 14 Waxma (2014). n. Map the Meal Gap 2014: Food Craig Gundersen, E mily Engelhard, A my Satoh, and E laine Insecurity and Child Food Insecurity Estimates at the County Level. Feeding America, 2014. . www.feedingamerica.org/mapthegap See Hunger in America 2014 National Report 4

20 1 Introduction and Background 15 assistance program, rose While to a new high of 47.6 million in 2013, up from 33.5 million in 2009. some of this growth can be attributed to changes in SNAP rules, recent studies conclude that the 16 weak economy explains most of the increase. Other government programs that provid ed nutrition assistance in 2013 also saw high levels of enrollment. About 9 million people received WIC benefits 5 million children received free or reduced , and lunches price school - in 2013. In the same year, 21. 17 .2 million children received school break 11 fasts. The increased need for food assistance observed within federal nutrition programs is mirrored in the number of clients seeking help from the charitable food assistance network. Despite known studies have documented increases in the undercounts of those seeking charitable help, government number of individuals getting help from food pantries and emergency meal programs in 2012 18 Feeding America, as the nation’s largest charitable food assistance compared with 2010. in helping those in need access nutritious food for themselves and organization, plays a critical role their families. How the Feeding America Network Delivers Food 1.3 Assistance The Feeding America network secures and provides food to families struggling with hunger, about the issue of hunger, and advocates for policies that protects people from educates the public going hungry. provides food to people facing hunger through a multilevel network Feeding America The approach. Through the Feeding America national office in Chicago, food, grocery items, and funds are secured for the network through national relationships with corporate manufacturers and s, individuals, foundations, government entities, and other partners. The retailer produce suppliers, Feeding America also supports the safe delivery and distribution of food throughout national office their network with a robust logistics and transportation system . 15 Participation data from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental - nutrition assistance - program - snap - 16 See, for example, Peter Ganong and Jeffrey B. Liebman. ning Trends in SNAP Enroll ment.” “Explai (2013). (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and NBER). 17 Participation - data from : WIC http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files//pd/wisummary.pdf ; National School - ; and School Breakfast Program http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/slsummar.pdf Lunch Progr am - http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/sbsummar.pdf 18 Coleman . Household Food Security in the United States in 2012 Jensen et al., - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 5

21 1 Introduction and Background the relief efforts. Using best practices, - National programs are an important part of local hunger network Feeding America relief programs. One example of - establishes and replicates several hunger a national program is the Mobile Pantry Program, through w hich food banks utilize dry/refrigerated vehicles to provide food to clients in areas where traditional pantries may not be accessible or where certain foods, such as produce, are difficult to distribute. The Mobile Pantry Program extends food banks’ reach , ensuring that more clients across diverse geographies are served. 19 In addition to relief. - are on the front lines of hunger Feeding America member food banks securing food and funds through the Feeding America national office, food banks secure local res ources as well. While Feeding America’s national office does not receive any federal funds, many relief funding in the form of commodities, meal reimbursements, - food banks receive federal hunger g to support their work. Food banks or grants. Food banks may also receive state and local fundin distribute food through a network of nonprofit partner agencies to support the programs they operate such as food pantries, kitchens, and shelters in their service area. Each food bank may work gencies to get food to people facing hunger. Some food banks also with hundreds of partner a collaborate with Partner Distribution Organizations (PDOs). While PDOs are not direct members ll of the Feeding America network, they are independent nonprofit organizations contracted to fulfi certain food banking responsibilities, such as product distribution management and food solicitation within a portion of a member’s service area. Partner agencies vary in size; some operate a single program, such as a food pantry in one room, ers are large community organizations that distribute food through various programs at while oth 20 multiple locations. Partner agencies can provide either emergency or nonemergency food assistance to clients, or in the case of large multiservice agencies, both. Emerg ency food programs include pantries that distribute unprepared grocery products and kitchens that provide prepared meals on site. Nonemergency programs have a primary purpose other than food distribution for example a — am that also provides the people it serves with food. rehabilitation, youth, or senior progr Additionally, food banks and partner agencies provide clients with outreach, education, referral, and/or application assistance with federal nutrition programs. 19 Feeding America member food banks have entered into a formal contract that outlines the standards that must be red to by all member food banks. Other nonmember food banks in the nation may provide similar services as adhe Feeding America member food banks, but this study only addresses the services provided and clients served by member food banks. 20 charitable organizations that have typically entered into a contract with a Feeding America Partner agencies are member food bank that outlines the standards that must be adhered to by all of the respective food bank’s partner may provide similar services as partner agencies in the Feeding agencies. Other charitable agencies in the nation America network, but this study only addresses the services provided by those in the Feeding America network. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 6

22 1 Introduction and Background ibutes over 3.3 billion pounds of food and grocery items In all, the Feeding America network distr through 202 food banks in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC each year. The pathways through which 1. - eceives and distributes food are shown in Figure 1 network r Feeding America the Sources of food and channels of food distribution in the Feeding America network 1. - re 1 Figu Hunger in America 2014 National Report 7

23 1 Introduction and Background 1.4 The Hunger in America 2014 Study Updates the Public on the Use of Charitable Food Assistance Given the important role that this network plays in reducing hunge r across the United States, Feeding America supports quadrennial surveys to document these programs and the clients they 2014 study includes an Agency Survey and a Client Survey. The Agency Survey serve. The HIA od distribution programs operate, including the sources details how charitable agencies and their fo of food available to them, their use of volunteers, and the challenges they see today and in the future. The Client Survey documents the number and characteristics of the people that use charitable fo od assistance, including what other sources of food assistance they have available and utilize. The objectives of the HIA 2014 national study are: , state - To create national  level estimates of the number of unduplicated - , and food bank - clients served ann ually, monthly, and weekly through a methodologically sound approach.  To understand the full scope and role of services in the Feeding America network by broadening the scope of the study from that of the previous study, Hunger in America 2010. To provide  for appropriate cultural and language competence in the Client Survey, in order to best capture the diversity of the Feeding America network.  To broaden our understanding of issues relating to: hardship; – Client health, vulnerability, nutrition choices, and financial – The role of food banks in clients’ formal and informal coping strategies; Clients’ participation in federal nutrition programs, especially SNAP; and – – strategies, food security, federal clients’ coping The relation between these program participat ion, and the frequency of food bank usage. The study’s findings will enhance understanding of food assistance needs in America. Considerable data are available to understand use of federal nutrition programs, but little research is available to e use of charitable food assistance programs. This gap in knowledge is concerning describe th because the need for food assistance goes beyond federal programs. Many people in need of food , and often federal assistance are not eligible or do not participate in federal nutrition programs Hunger in America 2014 National Report 8

24 1 Introduction and Background programs do not fully meet the food assistance needs of participants; the charitable food assistance network strives to meet this unmet need. Using the information in this national report, food bank staff and volunteers will have the d ata they need to document their role in reducing hunger across the country and communicate this information clearly with donors. This report will also help to inform government officials and the public about food insecurity and the needs of America’s low i ncome citizens. Ultimately, the results will help to guide actions to reduce the prevalence and severity of hunger in America. Subsequent reports will describe the survey results for many individual states and local food banks. The following of Chapters 2 through 6: is a summary  describes the study’s data collection methods and challenges. Chapter 2 Chapter 3  describes the Feeding America national network, highlighting the results of the Agency Survey. The numbers and locations of food banks participating in the survey, their partners, services provided, and funding are emphasized. includes estimates of the number of clients using food assistance through the  Chapter 4 Feeding America network weekly, monthly, and annually, and their demographic clients of the describes the households of ics. characterist It also Feeding America network , including languages spoken, their housing characteristics, employment status, and health status. Chapter 5 ent food  use of both charitable and governm food security, describes clients’ ategies used to prevent hunger. assistance, and coping str provides a summary of the findings. Chapter 6  Hunger in America 2014 National Report 9

25 Data about ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect 2 Food Programs and Clients Key Findings  Hunger in America 2014 (HIA 2014) employed a multistage design to facilitate the best estimates possible. selection of a probability sample and produce the The study differed in many ways from past Hunger in America (HIA) studies,  introducing innovations that move the study forward but also limit direct comparisons that can be made between the studies.  More than 32,000 partner agencie s participated in the Agency Survey, and more than 60,000 clients completed Client Surveys.  Ninety - two percent of member food banks participated in some portion of the study. Data in the report are weighted to allow national estimates that account for nonp articipating food banks. studies by implementing two surveys HIA 2014 followed the pattern of past HIA — an Agency Survey and a Client Survey — through a collaborative effort of an extended research team. For the current study, the main collaborators were the Feeding America national office research team and their Technical Advisory Group, the research teams at Westat and the Urban Institute, and the network of local Feeding America food banks. Each local food bank identified a study coordinator, or Hunger Stud y Coordinator (HSC). Each HSC was responsible for coordinating and facilitating - six food banks and 10 Partner Distribution local data collection efforts. One hundred eighty ils of food bank Organizations (PDOs) participated in at least one portion of HIA 2014. Further deta response rates appear in Section 2.5. The Agency Survey, conducted from October 2012 to January 2013, surveyed the partner agencies of all participating food banks. It gathered information about the agencies’ hunger - relief efforts, and th e specific programs the agencies operate. Only agencies that responded to the Agency Survey and listed at least one eligible food program could potentially be selected for the Client Survey, which es from the Feeding America network. was a survey of the food program clients who receive servic Visits to food programs to conduct Client Surveys were carried out by food bank staff and volunteers from April through August 2013. These surveys sought information from clients about their personal circumstances, hous ehold demographics, needs and challenges, and use of both government and charitable hunger - relief services. 2014 National Report Hunger in America 10

26 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the scientific efforts that resulted in the HIA two survey instruments; study and sample design; 2014 study, including: the development of the training of the data collection teams; implementation of the surveys; response rates; methodological issues to consider when interpreting the findings of the study; and an overview of the approach to s in this report. analyse 2.1 Study and Sample Design Instrument Development 2.1.1 Agency Survey The Agency Survey sought information on partner agencies’ organization and services and the ffing, and challenges they programs the agencies operate. This included agency funding sources, sta - food, and food - face; food, non related benefit programs they operate; and food program details, including operations, services, and client details. Once a final draft of the Agency Survey had been developed, a cognitive interview pretest was conducted to identify items that were misunderstood or difficult for respondents to answer. Feeding America provided Westat with a list of agencies from which to recruit for the Agency Survey pretest. Cognitive interviews were complet ed with six agencies. Pretest agencies were selected to vary in size, agency type, and number and type of programs and services provided. Pretesting was conducted through a combination of paper and telephone activities. Agencies ere sent a hardcopy of the survey by mail. They were contacted via email selected for the pretest w and subsequently contacted by telephone to confirm they received the survey and to schedule a time - vey was based cognitive interview in September or October of 2012. The sur for the telephone revised based on pretest findings, and the final web - based version was programmed. The Westat Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the Agency Survey and exempted the survey from further review. Agencies without Internet access that operated o nly one program were permitted to submit 21 For agencies with only Spanish speaking staff, a - responses to the survey to Westat by telephone. 21 six agencies submitted survey responses through the paper/telephone optio - Forty n. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 11

27 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect Data about Food Programs and Clients ing translated version of the Agency Survey was available to assist respondents. A slightly different version of the surv ey was available depending on the type of program operated by the agency, so that skip patterns were simplified. Client Survey The Client Survey sought information from those served by partner agencies and the programs they operate, including individual and household demographics and circumstances; health status, food insecurity and coping strategies; and participation in government and charitable food assistance programs. The research team conducted cognitive interview pretesting of the Client Survey i tems in December 2012 with 20 food bank clients representing four service areas. Service areas were selected to include for a variety of different types of food urban, urban/suburban mix, suburban, and rural clients . Thirteen of the interviews wer person, and the remaining seven were - e conducted in programs conducted by telephone. Clients’ understanding of and comfort with the interview questions was probed. Based on the clients’ feedback, the survey was then revised and finalized. The Client Survey programmed into a computerized version of the survey to be implemented using a was then touchscreen tablet device (Figure 2 1) and Audio Computer - Assisted Self - Interview (ACASI) - technology. The ACASI technology allows respondents to hold the tablet, listen through headphones to an audio recording of each question and its response options as they are displayed on the tablet, and select their responses using a stylus. ACASI provides increased privacy for respondents compared to face - to - face interviews, allowing for m ore accurate and honest responses to potentially sensitive survey questions such as those related to food insecurity or participation in federal programs. The use of ACASI also ensures that appropriate skip patterns are followed automatically, reducing hum an error that may occur during volunteer administered client interviews, - and allowing volunteers to focus their attention on the successful implementation of the sampling methodology rather than administration of the survey questions. In comparison to self - administered paper surveys, ACASI is more appropriate for populations containing individuals with lower literacy 22 This is the first time that the Client Survey was conducted electronically and through levels. ACASI. Previously, the survey was administered verbally by an interviewer following skip patterns and answers were recorded on paper. 22 Sid J. Schneider and Brad Edwards. (2000). “Developing Usability Guidelines for AudioCASI Respondents with - 255 16: Journal of Official Statistics, Limited Literacy Skills.” 271. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 12

28 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect Tablet computers ready for data collection at a food program site 1. - Figure 2 ish, For HIA 2014, the ACASI text and audio were translated and programmed in English, Span Mandarin Chinese, Russian, and Vietnamese, which were languages identified by food banks as priorities among the target population. Translation was carried out by professional, certified ere native speakers. Audio versions language translators, and reviewed for accuracy by editors who w of the survey questions were recorded by native speakers, and reviewed by editors for accuracy and compliance with the written questions. In March 2013, Feeding America and five participating food banks conducted a seco nd round of friendly for the various client pretesting to ensure that the tablets and survey technology were user - speakers, - and Spanish - were randomly sampled populations. Fifty clients , including both English to pretest the Client Survey using the tablet and across 10 charitable food program sites chosen ACASI technology. These were selected to ensure both geographic and program diversity. After completing the pretest survey, clients responded to evaluations in order to provide feedback about data collecti on. In these evaluations, 98 percent of the clients reported that the tablet was easy to use, despite nearly half of the clients indicating that they had no prior experience using tablets or ements to the digital surveys, laptops. The clients’ feedback was used to make additional improv including substantially increasing the audio volume and improving the legibility of the survey questions. The Westat IRB reviewed the Client Survey and all associated procedures and materials, and approved the activities unde r expedited authority. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 13

29 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect s ince Hunger in America 2010 New Survey Questions (HIA 2010) The Agency and Client Survey instruments included questions from the HIA 2010 surveys, other validated survey instruments, such as the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Populat ion Survey (CPS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Core Food Security Module (CFSM), as well as contributions and revisions from the collaborative 2014 research team. Revisions included the addition of questions to each survey, which were incorporated following feedback that Feeding America received from the network of food banks after HIA 2010. The Agency Survey featured new questions on nutrition services offered by agencies, agency to provide detail about all of the governance, program sources of funding, as well as the opportunity agencies’ programs, not solely emergency food programs as in 2010. The Client Survey incorporated new questions about client health, coping strategies, student status or military service, and languages spoken in the house hold, to name a few. Copies of the Agency Survey and Client Survey questions appear in Appendix A. Study Design 2.1.2 A primary goal for HIA 2014 was to design a study that allowed for selection of a probability sample of clients and for collection of da and food bank level estimates of the total - - ta to support national number of clients served. Below we describe the fundamental design used to achieve these goals. HIA 2014 Technica l Greater detail on study design, sampling, and weighting is available in the Volume, available upon request from Feeding America. HIA 2014 aimed to collect information directly from Feeding America clients, and to describe the number and characteristics of the clients who use the network for charitable food assistance. Because conducting interviews with every client served by every program over an extended period of time was not feasible, probability sampling was used to select a subset of programs at which data collection should occur, the days on which data collection should o ccur at those programs, and the clients who should be asked to complete the survey. As it applies to HIA 2014, probability sampling is an approach in which each client has a known, positive chance of being selected to complete the level - samples, it is possible to use the sample to estimate population survey. With probability information. The full population of Feeding America clients in the nation is unknown, so it was not possible to select from a known list of clients, as is sometimes possible in probabil ity sampling. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 14

30 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Consequently, the study was designed with a multistage design to facilitate selection of the probability sample . The first step of the study design was conducting the Agency Survey, which included all partner agencies identified by participa ting food banks on agency lists they compiled and provided to Feeding America. The Agency Survey was used to obtain an enumeration of eligible food programs The differentiation in the Feeding America network and basic information about those programs. een agencies and their programs proved somewhat challenging, as the line between them in the betw field is not always clear. The research team worked with food banks and partner agencies to ensure that agencies and their programs were clearly delineated, but ul timately the distinction may not always be precise (see Section 2.6.4). Following the Agency Survey, the sample of clients was obtained using a multistage design. A graphic depiction of the multistage design appears in - 2. Figure 2 design appear in the Technical Volume, but the four basic Details of the multistage stages were as follows:  Stage 1 involved selecting agencies from the set of respondents to the Agency Survey. Agencies that distributed more food per year, measured by pounds as an indication of ize, had a greater chance of being selected. s 23 Again,  Stage 2 involved selecting a sample of programs within sampled agencies. larger programs, based on reports from the Agency Survey of numbers of duplicated 24 clients served, had a higher chance of being se lected.  Stage 3 involved assigning a sampled program to a “survey day/hours” (a span of hours within a day during the survey data collection period). This was done in a manner that aimed to distribute data collection over the entire survey period and capture the ebbs flows in the way that clients are served with respect to hours of the day, days of the and week, and weeks of the month.  involved sending trained data collectors to the sampled program on the Stage 4 assigned survey day. The data collectors maintained a compl ete tally of all clients served during the survey hours and were provided with the protocol for selecting a random sample of clients to complete the Client Survey (a systematic sample that was based on a data collectors). random start and a sampling interval provided to the 23 To ensure that food banks could feasibly carry out the data collection as designed, allocations were made with input from Feeding America to balance food bank size with operational capacities. Some allocations were reduced or greater supplemented after the initial sample was drawn if food banks found that they had re sources or fewer available. 24 If a program did not report on the duplicated number of clients served, this was imputed to allow for inclusion of the program in Client Survey sampling. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 15

31 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect 2. - Figure 2 Multistage design of Hunger in America 2014 Hunger in America 2014 National Report 16

32 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients The Client Survey excluded programs that serve only children or persons with severe cognitive or such as domestic mental health disabilities, home delivery programs, and confidential locations violence shelters where data collection would violate privacy. Within eligible programs, children and clients with severe cognitive or mental health disabilities were deemed ineligible for the survey. Although children were not eligible to participate as respondents, they are included in the client counts and other data when they are members of entire households served by food programs, as is the case with programs that provide groceries. or the Client Survey, Feeding America identified Following the selection of the sample of programs f 79 very large programs that had not been included in the sample, either because the size measures provided for their agencies or the program themselves were missing or inaccurate, or because the ogram was not listed. Large programs were identified by looking at the proportion of agency or pr the food bank’s total pounds distributed to the partner agency. In such situations, these very large tainty, and the weighting programs or additional program sites were added to the sample with cer approach was later modified to account for these new additions. A common example included food operated programs, rather than - banks that distribute food directly to clients through food bank operated programs represented a large percentage of - d bank programs at partner agencies. These foo the food bank’s total pounds and may have operated through multiple distribution sites per program. - An overview of the study design appears in Figure 2 , showing participation of the network in t 3 he two surveys, and the participation numbers at each phase of the study. 2.1.3 Program Type Definitions As mentioned in Section 1.3, Feeding America food banks collaborate with partner agencies that Four ma operate programs to support their communities. were used in HIA categories jor program broad 2014 to classify services provided by the agencies. Food programs fell into one of two These categories were established because clients are conceptualized grocery. meal categories: or tegory (see further explanation in this Chapter, Section 2.6.3). Additionally, differently under each ca we expected patterns to emerge among clients utilizing each of the two distinct categories; we discuss these patterns amidst the findings in the coming chapters. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 17

33 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect Figure 2 3 articipation of the Feeding America network in Hunger in America 2014 . P - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 18

34 2 ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect Data about Food Programs and Clients Food programs were probed on the Agency Survey and potentially eligible for inclusion in the Client - Survey. Two other categories of non food programs were identified and probed on the Agency t distribute food. Non - food Survey but were not eligible for the Client Survey because they do no - programs include both food - related benefits programs, and other non food programs. Details of the program categories appear below, and the types of the programs in each category are listed in 2 appear in Appendix B. Figure s of programs in each category . Descriptions of the 4 - type MEAL PROGRAMS provide prepared meals or snacks on site or in the client’s home to clients in need who may or may not reside on the agency’s premises. This category includes all congregate ms along with all other kitchens and shelter programs. feeding progra GROCERY PROGRAMS distribute nonprepared foods, groceries, and other household supplies - site use, usually for preparation in the client’s home. This includes all types of pantries, for off - deliver home ed groceries, mobile grocery programs, Commodity Supplemental Food Programs (CSFP), BackPack programs, and Community Gardens. - FOOD RELATED BENEFIT PROGRAMS provide resources that enable individuals in need to procure meals, groceries, or nongrocery produc ts. These programs typically involve outreach, information and referrals, and/or application assistance to obtain state or federal food assistance benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the Special Supplemental Nutrition P , rogram for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), or nutrition education. OTHER NON - FOOD PROGRAMS have a primary purpose other than meal programs, grocery - related benefit programs, such as clothing/furniture assistance or legal assistance. programs or food A lthough non - food programs are not directly related to the issue of hunger, they are included to show the diverse array of services provided through the Feeding America network. highlights the mutually exclusive and exhaustive nature of the meal 4 - Figure 2 /grocery distinction across program types included in our sample. It also indicates how the pantries, kitchens, and HIA 2010 report fits within our broader schema. Senior programs and shelters approach of the nd are discussed separately at times in the report. mobile programs are a subset of special focus a Hunger in America 2014 National Report 19

35 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients 4 - Figure 2 2014 Hunger in America Program type categorizations used in . 2.2 Agency Survey Implementation Partner Agencies Collecting Data from 2.2.1 f food bank partner agencies. The process of The sample for the Agency Survey was comprised o identifying organizations to be surveyed for the Agency Survey began with a listing of the partner . Each food bank provided the research teams with a list of participating food bank agencies of each their active agencies. The Agency Survey was intended to be a census of the agencies of all participating food banks thus, each active agency received an invitation to complete the survey. The Hunger in America 2014 National Report 20

36 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients list was updated as needed during the survey period to reflect recognized o missions, identified 25 inaccuracies, or agencies that became inactive. 2.2.2 Agency Survey Data Collection One major innovation for HIA 2014 was web - based data collection for the Agency Survey. This burden on agency staff by automatically applying mode of data collection was intended to (1) reduce skip patterns and (2) increase the quality and efficiency of data collected. Beginning on 26 October 19, 2012, Westat sent Agency Survey invitation emails to all the food banks’ agencies. The email included in structions for accessing and completing the survey, and for accessing additional resource documents. The Agency Survey included two components: agency questions and program questions. As part of - food programs they operate, including the agency questions, agencies enumerated the food and non grocery programs such as pantries; meal programs such as kitchens, shelters, or congregate meals; related benefits programs such as SNAP outreach and application assistance and nutrition - food education; and other n food programs such as legal or clothing assistance. Subsequently, agencies - on depth questions about each food program, for up to 15 of their largest food - were asked a series of in programs. For special circumstances when agencies could not complete the Ag ency Survey online, a paper/telephone version was made available upon request. The paper/telephone version was only 27 available to agencies operating a single program. The paper/telephone version asked the respondent to complete a hardcopy worksheet version of the survey, and to follow up by calling the Westat research team to complete a telephone interview component with an interviewer who read the web survey questions to the respondent and entered responses directly in the respondent’s specific web survey. Forty - six agencies completed the paper/telephone version of the survey. 25 It is possible that food banks may not ultimately have listed all the agencies they serve for the purposes of this study. Additionally, some agencies may not have reported on all of their programs within the Agency Survey. The information in this report is based solely on the agencies and programs that participated in this study. 26 A dditional survey invitations were sent in later batches as the agency list was updated by the food banks. 27 survey questions for each program based on program type. Multiple set of program - level This was because there was a rsion too onerous. programs would make the paper ve Hunger in America 2014 National Report 21

37 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect 2.2.3 Agency Survey Resource Materials Agencies had access to numerous resources and training materials to help them complete their earch teams developed tools in a range of Agency Survey. The Feeding America and Westat res media to help facilitate successful completion of the survey by agencies, as well as to equip food banks with sufficient information to similarly support their agencies. These resources included g the survey’s purpose and procedures, and reference guides to assist survey webinars emphasizin respondents in navigating the study web site and gathering the information and records needed to rsions of the complete the survey. In addition, the research team created English and Spanish ve question instructions with screenshots of the web survey as a resource for agency staff. - by - question Both Feeding America and Westat allocated staff whose principal role was to provide technical assistance to the food banks and agencies. Wes tat staffed two helpdesks, which fielded technical and survey content - related questions over email and phone. Feeding America staff supported food bank staff and agency representatives who wanted to discuss strategies for increasing agency response needed additional help reaching out to agencies or had difficulty answering particular rates, questions. Additionally, each food bank’s HSC was substantially involved in the Agency Survey data survey and to promote a high - based collection process to ensure that agencies could access the web completion rate of surveys among their agencies. To this end, many food banks offered incentives to agencies completing the survey, such as raffles for donated kitchen equipment, or credits to use e food bank. towards procuring food from th 2.2.4 Agency Survey Field Period The Agency Survey field period was from October 19, 2012 to January 7, 2013. Survey invitations were sent beginning October 19 and continued as the agency list was updated with newly identified agencies eligi ble for the survey. The original Agency Survey field period was scheduled to end December 14, 2012, but was extended by three weeks to January 7, 2013 in an effort to allow agencies more time to complete the survey Survey. In addition, several agencies were affected by and therefore be eligible for the Client Superstorm Sandy during October 2012, which influenced their ability to complete the Agency Survey within the original field period. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 22

38 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect Agency Survey Monitoring 2.2.5 A web - based study management syste m (SMS) was developed to allow the HSCs to track their agencies’ survey completion progress in real time. HSCs were food bank staff charged with coordinating, implementing, and monitoring all HIA 2014 study operations for their respective food banks. HSCs could view the survey status (not yet started, in progress, or complete) for each of their own agencies, as well as the date of the most recent activity. The SMS also included filtering options u - p efforts as needed. Additionally, and summary reports. HSCs used the SMS to guide their follow Feeding America and Westat used the SMS to monitor progress across all food banks. 2.3 Training of Food Bank Hunger Study Coordinators and Volunteer Data Collectors HSCs were also responsible for all aspects of Client S urvey study execution on the local level. They coordinated with sampled agencies and their sampled food programs, and oversaw implementation of the data collection visits. HSCs were expected to recruit and train data collectors who would assist their food bank with the Client Survey data collection. Data collectors, who included both food bank staff members and volunteers from the community, were trained to go to the sampled food programs; conduct client sampling at the programs; gain cooperation and consen t to participate from the sampled clients; and aid in the administration of the computerized survey. To ensure that the HSCs were appropriately prepared to train their data collectors, all HSCs - participated in an in Feeding America staff. In addition to person training conducted by Westat and providing the HSCs with a full understanding of the requirements of the Client Survey data collection and the HSC responsibilities, the training comprehensively reviewed the topics and associated materials that the HS Cs would use to train their own data collectors. Topics covered included the processes for sampling, recruiting, and consenting clients; setting up and using the ond to equipment (e.g., tablets, keyboards, headphones); navigating the survey and being able to resp client questions; handling any problems that might occur in field; and submitting all of the necessary data and information at the end of the program visit. - ry HSC person trainings in different regions of the country. Eve - day in Westat conducted three two was expected to attend one of these trainings. In the few cases in which an HSC did not attend one - of the scheduled in person trainings, or a different HSC was newly assigned at a food bank, a Hunger in America 2014 National Report 23

39 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect estat provided HSCs with all of the up training was conducted. After the trainings, W - follow materials and resources they would need to train their data collectors and to help ensure these trainings were conducted consistently across the food banks, including webinars, manuals, and study s well as resource documents with recommended guidance for recruiting, data collection forms, a training, and overseeing volunteer data collectors. 2.4 Client Survey Implementation - selected 2, the sample for the Client Survey was As described in Section 2.1 and depicted in Figure 2 - using a four stage sampling approach with the stages of selection being (1) agency, (2) program, (3) survey day/hours, and (4) clients. The following sections describe the details of how the client survey was implemented. 2.4.1 nslation Client Survey Tra The Client Survey was administered in five languages that were identified with input from participating food banks, with the intent to reach the largest number of clients. Prior to HIA 2014, the Client Survey was only offered in English and Spanis h. Most of the 60,122 completed surveys 1. - were administered in English, with other language translations utilized as shown in Table 2 Although the survey was offered in multiple languages, a client’s ability to take the survey in a particular language was dependent on the recruitment and availability of bilingual data collectors. Data collectors were responsible for inviting sampled clients to take the survey and collecting verbal consent; consequently, limited bilingual data collector availability may hav e precluded some clients from taking the survey. Table 2 1. - Client s urveys administered by language Percentage Language administered Count 92.8% 55,818 English Mandarin Chinese 101 0.2% Russian 0.1% 70 6.7% Spanish 4,027 Vietnamese 0.2% 106 100% 60,122 Unweighted total Hunger in America 2014 National Report 24

40 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing 2.4.2 Client Data Collection Procedures In early April 2013, Westat released the food bank sampling plans to the HSCs so they could - visit April. HSCs called program staff to discuss prepare for data collection beginning in mid logistics and formed data collection teams for each visit, with a lead data collector overseeing the equipment and data collection forms. The HSCs were instructed to make these preparations about ograms, the assignment of survey day/hours two weeks before the program visit. For the sampled pr was randomized based on information about the program’s days and hours of operation provided in the Agency Survey. Because of incomplete or inaccurate responses to these items, in many cases, the program was not i n operation during the assigned survey day/hours. Additionally, in some cases, it was not feasible for the food bank to arrange for data collection to occur during the assigned survey day/hours (e.g., due to resource limitations or weather related issues). - If the HSC discovered that a visit could not be conducted during the assigned day/time, a prespecified procedure was used to 28 Up to two replacements were permitted before a visit was assign a replacement survey day/hours. 29 he data collection did not take place. finalized as “nonresponse,” and t Sampling of clients at the programs was carefully specified to achieve seven to eight sampled clients at each program visit. The overall target number of sampled clients was designed to yield a umber of 70,000 completed Client Surveys, with the assumption that five prespecified target n percent of clients would be ineligible and 75.0 percent of eligible clients would complete the Client services and Survey. On the day of a program visit, data collectors sampled clients waiting for invited those who were sampled to participate in the survey. F or those clients who agreed to participate, data collectors described all survey activities, informed from clients to verbal clients that risks were minimal and the study voluntary, and obtained consent instructed the clients in the use of the tablet and the ACASI instrument participate. Data collectors before allowing the clients Some food banks provided modest incentives for to complete the survey. gift cards worth $10 or less, but not all food banks were able to offer participation, such as cash or 28 were designed to be compatible with the initial sampling protocol, such as going on the same day of the Procedures week during the following week (for example replacing a Monday with the following Monday), or the same day and he following month (for example the first Monday of the month during the following month). The Westat week of t Helpdesk was available to assist with complex rescheduling needs. 29 Final nonresponse was assigned as a status to any program that was eligible for sampling at the time of the Agency Survey and was sampled, but a program visit did not occur. Reasons for nonresponse included: no longer partnering ed twice and with the food bank; not open during the data collection period; refusal to participate; visit was reschedul - did not occur; program operates only on an on call basis; or any other reason an eligible sampled program would not be visited. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 25

41 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect incentives to clients. Incentives, when provided, were distributed after participation, but were not dependent on full survey completion. ad data collector was required to complete a Site Survey After the close of each program visit, the le for the program. The Site Survey provided a summary of the results of each data collection visit, documenting key variables related to sampling including data collection start and end times, and 30 adju stments to sampling procedures required by logistics of the visit or program operations. Additionally, the Site Survey included questions on the total client flow during the visit, participation status of each sampled client, and reasons for client inelig ibility or nonresponse. Reasons for ineligibility included being a minor, or having cognitive impairment or mental health disability that interfered with the ability to consent to participation. Nonresponse included any reason for igible sampled client. These data were compiled in report format and were nonparticipation by an el made available to HSCs and research team staff. HSCs could also review this information for local ppendix A. monitoring of their data collectors’ efforts. A copy of the Site Survey appears in A 2.4.3 Client Survey Field Period Client Survey data collection began on April 17, 2013 and continued through August 30, 2013. As designed, a slow rollout of the Client Survey was implemented in April to allow food banks time to data collection effort. Food banks were given fewer assignments from April 17 through adjust to the April 30, which resulted in smaller numbers of completed Client Surveys at the beginning of data 31 Due to either collection (see Table 2 - 2 for unweighted Client Survey completion informa tion). available program operation days or the need to reschedule visits, some food banks had no data collection visits during these first two weeks. From May through August 2013 assignments were steady, but rescheduling needs resulted in so me scheduled visits being shifted to later in the data collection period. 30 before Adjustments were typically required for nontraditional operational circumstances such as programs that opened the scheduled time, or programs that split clients into multiple lines to wait for services. 31 A survey needed to have responses to at least 50 percent of the core survey items to be considered complete. Core possibility of valid skips due to survey skip logic. Because the survey had survey items were those that involved no extensive skip logic, 50 percent of core items was deemed the minimum necessary for a survey to yield enough valid data for inclusion in analyses. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 26

42 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Table 2 - 2. Completed client surveys by month Count Percentage 2013 Month 1,395 2.3% April 17 through April 30 May 1 through May 31 11,766 19.6% June 1 through June 30 13,966 23.2% 26.2% July 1 through July 31 15,739 * 17,256 August 1 through August 30 28.7% 60,122 100% Unweighted total * Although the official data collection period ended in August, six of these surveys were actually collected in September. 2.4.4 Client Survey Resources As with the Agency Survey, food bank staff and data collectors had access to various resources and support throughout client data collection. Westat’s telephone and email helpdesk was operational all hours during which data collection took call during business place. Feeding America staff were on - hours to take any overflow calls that could not be answered immediately by the Westat team. Common questions the helpdesk addressed included how to reschedule an assigned data collection window and how to count and sample clients in nontraditional circumstances, e.g., at a food program with multiple client lines. Feeding America staff also supported food banks with volunteer and post data collection documentation, and bolstering fo - - od banks’ internal recruitment, pre capacities for staff time dedicated to HIA 2014. In addition to remote support, Feeding America and Westat staff provided on ground technical - - the assistance to various food banks to help ensure the success and integrity of client data c ollection. The Westat team, which designed the data collector training as well as sampling implementation, observed food bank operations and data collection at 10 food bank locations of varying food bank size and capacity. Following the visits, Westat prov ided feedback to the food banks to help them improve their methods. Feeding America staff also traveled to 45 food banks and visited more than needed basis to provide supplemental trainings of HSCs and data collectors, - 100 programs on an as itional data collectors when the food banks were in need, and to help troubleshoot to serve as add study implementation challenges. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 27

43 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Response Rates 2.5 The response rate is the ratio of the number of units with completed surveys to the number of units sampled and eligibl e for the survey. For example, the units could be agencies, programs, households, or persons. Response rates can be either unweighted or weighted. The unweighted rate, computed using the raw number of cases, provides a useful description of the success of the operational 32 aspects of the survey. The weighted rate gives a better description of the success of the survey with respect to the population sampled, since the weights allow for inference of the sample data 33 level. Both rates are usually similar. (including response status) to the population All of the unit response rates discussed in this section are unweighted; weighted response rates are given in the Technical Volume. banks and PDOs bank level, participation in the study was high, with 196 member food - At the food participating in the Client Survey. Study participation was 7 participating in the Agency Survey and 18 offered to each Feeding America food bank, and if the food bank’s network included PDOs the member could then elect to extend the offer of participation to their PDOs. PDOs are not members of the Feeding America network directly, but are instead independent nonprofit organizations that 34 are contracted to fulfill all primary food banking responsibilities on behalf of the network member efined portion of a member’s service area. in a d For HIA 2014, food bank members were given the option of either participating in the study on behalf of their PDO, in which case the agencies of the PDO were included on the member agency list, or choosing to hav e the PDOs participate independently. Ten PDOs participated independently 35 and were treated identically to all other participating food banks. For the Agency Survey, 186 of the 36 202 member food banks, or 92.0 percent participated, in addition to 10 PDOs pa rticipating independently. For the Client Survey, 17 8 of the 202 member food banks participated, or For the remainder of this section, all references to “food bank” percent, as well as nine PDOs. 88. 1 include both Feeding America member food banks and PDOs that participated on their own. 32 Weighted rates are computed by summing the weights (usually the reciprocals of the probability of selecting the units) for bot h the numerator and denominator. 33 U nless the probabilities of selection and the unit response rates in the categories with different selection probabilities va ry considerably. 34 Food banking responsibilities of PDOs include: Product distribution management; agency relations management; food solicitation; fundraising for hunger related activities. - related activities; and media and community relations for hunger - 35 PDOs were given separate food bank IDs for the study, and they appear separately in the data files and reports. 36 omprised 202 member food banks. At the time of the study, the Feeding America network c Hunger in America 2014 National Report 28

44 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect At the agency level, of the 44,659 eligible agencies listed by participating food banks, 32,677 analysis dataset for the responded to enough questions on the Agency Survey to be included in the Agency Survey data A case was included in the analysis dataset if at least 50 percent of the core . survey items that all respondents were eligible to answer were in fact answered. Fewer than 50 percent of these responses provided too little data for the case to be validly inc luded in analyses . Thus, 73.2 percent of agencies had analytically complete Agency Surveys. under this definition, Standards for including agencies and their programs in the sampling frame for the Client Survey were in clusion in the analysis dataset described above (i.e . , a nalytically less stringent than the standard for frame Client Survey sampling the in included their if complete Agency S urveys ) . Agencies were listed and Agency Survey was deemed sufficient for use in sampling, meaning that the agency pr ovided basic information on the survey about at least one eligible food program. At the time of agency and program sampling for the Client Survey, there were 42,878 agencies potentially eligible for sampling , and 35,690 of these (83.2 percent) provided bas ic information about at least one eligible food program and thus were included in the sampling frame for the Client Survey . We sampled a subset of these agencies, resulting in a sample of 15,972 agencies, and then sampled one or more level sample of 16,654 from each sampled agency, resulting in a program eligible food program - s 37 food programs, either meal or grocery, selected for participation in the Client Survey data collection (See Section 2.1.2 for a summary of the stages of sample selection). on to programs identified as ineligible and removed from the sampling frame earlier, a total In additi of 1,419 of the 16,654 sampled programs (8.5 percent) were deemed ineligible for the Client Survey by their food banks because upon further inspection it was deter mined that they, too, only served ineligible clients (children or persons with severe mental or cognitive disabilities), were domestic violence shelters, or their program logistics precluded data collection from occurring (e.g., home delivery such as “Meal s on Wheels”). Of the 15,235 program visits assigned to eligible programs, 12,475 visits (81.9 percent) were completed. The distribution of visits to the two broad types of food – appears in Table 2 - 3. programs – meal and grocery 37 These 16,654 sampled programs were associated with 1 6,556 distinct programs, as some large programs had multiple distribution sites included in the sample at the request of Feeding America or the food banks. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 29

45 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Table 2 - 3. Unweighted di stribution of program visits by program category Count Type of program Percentage 13.9% Meal 1,732 Grocery 10,743 86.1% 100% 12,475 Unweighted total Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. An estimated 97,133 eligible clients were sampled during those program visits, and 60,122 clients 38 for a client response rate of 61.9 percent. completed the Client Survey, 39 1.6 percent of During the process of sampling clients at the data collection visits, an estimated neligible. Sampled individuals were deemed ineligible for the sampled clients were found to be i Client Survey if they were minors initially misidentified as adult clients, and therefore could not consent to participation, or if the data collector determined that the sampled individual was cognitively impaired in ways that precluded understanding and consenting to participation. Clients could also be deemed eligible but nonresponse if they refused the survey or wished to take the survey but another factor prevented them from doing so. Track ed reasons for refusal or nonresponse included: the program was closing for the day; the sampled individual was picking up food as a proxy for a client, such as a home health aide, and therefore no client was available to complete the survey; concerns abou t using the computer technology; having a physical impairment that made completion of the survey too challenging; needing to complete the survey in a language not offered; or other reasons not specified. Other reasons for client refusal were observed by da ta collectors and noted anecdotally but not tracked. Some clients were unable to complete the survey because they were dependent on another individual for a ride, while others reported needing to leave in order to go to a job, school, or appointment. Still other clients declined, reporting feeling ill or unable to leave their children unsupervised at the time that the survey was offered. These reasons for refusal, as well as other unrecorded reasons, may have introduced some bias into the survey results tha t is difficult to quantify. Considering responses among all 97,133 eligible sampled clients who were invited to take the survey, females participated at a higher rate than males (65.1 percent vs. 38 having Client Surveys were submitted for another 5,088 clients that did not me et the completion criterion of responses to at least 50 p ercent of the core survey items that all respondents were eligible to answer. Fewer than 50 percent of these responses provided too little data for the case to be validly included in analyses . 39 S ata collectors to report on the sampling of clients was the The mechanism used for d — a form completed S ite urvey by the data collectors following the program visit. Among the 12, completed program visits, site surveys were not 475 completed for 56 of these program visits; thus, fo r these 56 visits, information about the number of sampled clients and the number of eligible clients among those sampled is missing and must be estimated. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 30

46 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect than seniors (69.1 percent vs. 58.6 percent), and nonseniors participated at a higher rate percent). 49.7 Characteristics of Client Survey Respondents 2.5.1 All data presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report utilize weighted data, representing and describing the clients in the Feeding America network and their households. From an operational perspective it is informative to know some unweighted characteristics of the actual survey respondents. Survey respondents themselves were not necessarily representative of the full network of clients, but their demographic characteristics can provide insight into the perspective they brought to the survey activity. Survey respondents were most often adult nonseniors, with the highest percentage of respondents th meal and grocery programs, falling into the 30 old age range (Table 2 - 4). Across bo 49 year - respondents did not tend to be in the youngest age group, 18 - 29. Table 2 - 4. Survey respondents by age group Type of program All food Age of respondent programs Meal Grocery 15.5% 29 - 18 11.3% 10.7% 37.6% 30 36.2% 49 37.4% - 22.7% - 59 24.3% 50 24.1% 60 and over 25.5% 27.4% 27.1% 100% Total 100% 100% Unweighted nonreporting respondents 3,171 2,774 397 Total unweighted N 8,070 52,052 60,122 Data Source: Q3. Survey, Hunger in America 2014 Client nonreporting respondents include missing data due to item nonresponse. Numbers listed under Across all programs respondents were more likely to be female than male, but a closer look at the 5). - specific data shows that this trend is reversed for meal programs (Table 2 - program Hunger in America 2014 National Report 31

47 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect - 5. Survey respondents by gender Table 2 Type of program All food Grocery programs Meal Gender Female 42.5% 70.4% 66.7% Male 57.5% 29.6% 33.3% Total 100% 100% 100% 1,091 1,272 Unweighted nonreporting respondents 181 60,122 Total unweighted 8,070 52,052 N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q2. Numbers listed under nonreporting respondents include missing data due to item nonresponse. Finally, the survey respondents were racially and ethnically diverse (Table 2 6). Although - 57.7 percent of respondents were White, the overall group of respondents brings together the perspectives of many different races and countries of origin. Variability in survey respondent race and ethnicity may have been limited by the fact that surveys we re offered in only five languages (as described in Section 2.4.1), and even administration in those languages was limited by the availability of data collectors who could recruit participants in their preferred language. - 6. Survey respondents by r ace and ethnicity Table 2 Type of program All food Race/ethnicity programs Meal Grocery American Indian or Alaska Native 4.0% 3.8% 5.4% Asian 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% Chinese 27.1% 20.9% 21.5% Filipino 22.9% 36.2% 34.8% Other Asian 46.7% 55.7% 47.7% Black or African American 24.2% 25.6% 25.4% Hispanic 10.7% 14.4% 13.9% Mexican 60.8% 67.2% 66.5% Puerto Rican 12.7% 19.9% 11.9% Other Latino/Hispanic 26.6% 24.9% 25.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% White 61.3% 57.1% 57.7% Some other race 1.6% 1.5% 2.3% Multiple race or ethnicity 4.6% 3.7% 3.9% Unweighted nonreporting respondents 196 1,350 1,154 Total unweighted N 60,122 8,070 52,052 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q4, Q4A, and Q4B. Respondents who endorsed Respondents could mark more than one race/ethnicity subcategory so percentages may not sum to 100%. multiple races or ethnicities were counted under each race/ethnicity endorsed and under multiple race or ethnicity. Numbers listed under nonreporting respondents include missing data due to item nonresponse. , Other Asian includes Bangladeshi, Burmese, Cambodian, Hmong, Indian (India), Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Malaysian specified). Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese, and Other Asian (un Other Latino/Hispanic includes Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Costa Rican, Honduran, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Cuban, Spanish American and Other Latino (unspecified). Hunger in America 2014 National Report 32

48 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect 2.6 Methodological Considerations in Understanding and Interpreting Findings Cha 2.6.1 nges in Program Types between HIA 2010 and HIA 2014 2010 focused on pantries, kitchens, and shelters, often known as emergency food programs. HIA HIA 2014 includes numerous other program types, thus broadening the spectrum of programs d in data collection. As a result, the program type categorizations have changed described and include in HIA 2014. Food programs, which are included in both the Agency and Client Surveys, are now es. divided more broadly into those that provide meals and those that provide groceri See 2.1.3 for details of program types. Specific subtypes of programs are described in Section Appendix B. Underrepresentation of Children Served by the Feeding America 2.6.2 Network e issue of hunger among One important focus of the Feeding America network is to address th children. Consequently, the network provides food to many programs that uniquely serve children, including BackPack Programs, Kids Cafe, Afterschool Snack, daycare, child congregate feeding on these programs for children was included in the programs, and others. Although information Agency Survey, the programs were not eligible for participation in the Client Survey. Children could not consent to participate or provide the type of information sought on the surveys, nor were parents p resent at the programs to consent or answer on their behalf. Similarly, children present during client data collection at eligible meal programs were not eligible to be sampled or invited to respond to the Client Survey. The study does report on households with children who receive grocery program services, thus including children in the client estimates for grocery programs, but overall the study will underestimate Feeding America’s services provided to children. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 33

49 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients s, and Food Program Clients Survey Respondents, Their Household 2.6.3 In understanding the terminology and units of analysis for the Client Survey, it is necessary to consider the concept of the “client,” as the definition varied slightly by program type.  , the client is the meal programs For individual who receives the actual prepared meal or snack on site at the program. For example, an individual attending a senior congregate meal program receives services, but no one else at that individual’s home may be a food program client. Consequently, when data collectors counted and sampled clients in meal programs, each eligible individual on site was counted and sampled separately. Sampled individuals served as the respondents. ies may , every member of the household receiving the grocer grocery programs For  benefit from the grocery products brought home; thus, the entire household, or conceptualized differently each individual within the household, is a client. When counting and sampling clients in grocery programs, sampling was done by counting each household group as one client. If the household was sampled, one adult household member volunteered to serve as the respondent on behalf of the household. Clients who responded to the survey answered questions about themselves and their households. We repo of both individual clients and the rt data in Chapter 4 on characteristics clients’ households, to allow an understanding of (individual food both the clients who receive food program services , as well as recipients for meal programs, but all individuals in the househ old for grocery programs) the background and home circumstances of all clients, regardless of whether the entire household W encompassing e continue to report data on clients’ households in Chapter 5, receives services. both direct recipients of food program services and members of their households, for meal and grocery programs. 2.6.4 Agency List Challenges At the beginning of the study, food banks provided information to Feeding America about all their operate the food distribution programs). This list was used partner agencies (the organizations that as the foundation for the frame of agencies to which the Agency Survey was distributed. Respondents to the Agency Survey were then used as the frame for the Client Survey sample. e of the Agency Survey data collection, however, the research team discovered that During the cours the agency list contained some errors and inconsistencies. In some cases, agencies had been inadvertently omitted from the list. In other cases, the programs that the agenci es operated were also listed as agencies themselves, particularly if the food banks distributed food directly to the individual Hunger in America 2014 National Report 34

50 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect programs. Although the research teams worked with the food banks to clarify terminology, correct errors, and ensure that data we re received on all identified agencies and their programs, it is possible that some food banks may not have listed all the agencies they serve for the purposes of this study. The information in this report is based solely on the agencies and programs that participated in this study. Volunteer Data Collection Efforts 2.6.5 HIA 2014 is the largest data collection we are aware of in the country carried out by volunteer data collectors. Each food bank’s data collector pool varied substantially; whereas some f ood banks used only food bank staff for data collection activities, other food banks may have relied exclusively on external volunteers, interns, or paid data collectors. Although many data collectors were food bank e the study possible. d added generous efforts of volunteers ma staff engaged with study activities, the Nonetheless, relying on a volunteer workforce to help implement a complex and lengthy data time professional data collectors who are - collection presents inevitable challenges. Unlike full comm itted only to that task for months on end, volunteers are often able to give only a limited amount of time scheduled around employment, school, and other commitments. This more limited unity to accrue enough availability may have resulted in some volunteers not having the opport experience to master the data collection activities. Limited volunteer availability also presented a challenge for HSCs who needed to staff program visits to be carried out during preassigned days and times to comply with the sample design. Limited volunteer availability sometimes resulted in rescheduled and missed program visits or in too few data collectors at a visit to implement the procedures as intended, introducing some statistical error into the study data. Thus, while the unteer workforce made the study possible, the limitations of this approach may also affect the vol precision of some of the estimates. Natural Disasters 2.6.6 Natural disasters affected both food distribution operations and survey implementation over the cou rse of the study. Agency Survey data collection was disrupted by Superstorm Sandy, which made Hunger in America 2014 National Report 35

51 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect 40 Some agencies landfall on October 29, 2012. Agencies across several food banks were affected. were unable to complete the Agency Survey as they turned their atte ntion to an increased level of emergency food distribution and recovery. Additionally, because some agencies closed permanently or discontinued their services in the wake of the storm, this affected the subsequent Client Survey data collection. reas, individual food banks also had data collection disrupted during the Client Survey field In other a period. A tornado struck Moore, Oklahoma, and the adjacent areas on May 20, 2013. Due to the tornado, that local food bank had to cease client data collection for two weeks. Several wildfires also spread through Colorado in June and July of 2013, resulting in that local food bank needing to cease client data collection for two weeks. In each case, the food banks attempted to reschedule visits when possible. When it was not possible, statistical corrections were implemented to compensate for 41 the missed visits. Changes from Past Hunger in America Studies to Hunger in America 2.6.7 2014 HIA 2014 marks a departure from past departures is studies in several ways. Each of these HIA important for considering HIA 2014 in context and attempting to compare it to past results. Many of these changes were the result of feedback from previous studies. Readers are encouraged to exercise caution and fully understand the limitatio ns of comparing the two studies before drawing conclusions about the differences between them. The novel features of HIA 2014 include: HIA Whereas previous studies focused Inclusion of Additional Program Types.  lly pantries, kitchens, and shelters, HIA solely on emergency food programs, specifica 2014 expanded the scope of the study to include both emergency and nonemergency programs. For the first time, agencies were asked to provide detailed information about all of their programs on the Agency Survey, al lowing for the inclusion of mobile pantry programs, senior programs, rehabilitation programs, and more in the Client Survey. Although the increase in scope of HIA 2014 required additional commitment from participating food bank and agency staff, it has pro vided a more representative picture of the services provided in the network and the clients who use those services. 40 Food banks and their agencies in Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia were affected by Superstorm Sandy. 41 Because agencies provide disaster relief whenever their region requires it, these events were treated as random events ments were made to account for increased client flow that may result from natural disasters. in estimates and no adjust Hunger in America 2014 National Report 36

52 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Meal/Grocery Classification.  The shift to including nonemergency food programs created the need to broaden the category of programs. As described in Section 2.6.1, study findings for HIA 2014 are presented for meal programs and for grocery programs, hen, and shelter categories. Although we present some instead of the former pantry, kitc key estimates for clients of pantries, kitchens, and shelters, the shift in design means that even those estimates are not fully comparable with previous years’ estimates. studies HIA f the most important changes from past  Digital Data Collection. One o was the introduction of digital As described earlier in Section 2.1.1, both collection. data - based the Agency Survey and the Client Survey were moved to a computer for respondents completing the surveys. The use administration to allow for greater ease of skip logic offered only the relevant survey questions to each respondent and a more secure and timely submission of survey responses. Data collectors were available onsite who struggled with the technological component. Other to provide assistance to clients challenges inherent to the use of technology, such as temporary loss of Internet connection, may have affected some surveys, however, the potential for human error - rson client interviews to electronic surveys. pe was minimized by the change from in Given the diversity of languages spoken by  Additional Survey Language Options. Feeding America , HIA 2014 offered both the Agency and Client Surveys in clients additional languages. For the first time, the Agenc y Survey was translated into Spanish speaking agency staff. The electronic Client Survey was to accommodate any Spanish - offered in five languages: English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Russian, and Vietnamese. Previously, the Client Survey was only offered i n English and Spanish. The three additional languages were selected based on feedback from food bank staff and recommendations from research experts. Timing Adjustment to Allow for Better Client Sample Selection. past HIA In  studies the Agency and Client s urveys were conducted at the same time. For HIA 2014, the Agency Survey was conducted before the Client Survey, allowing agency data to be incorporated into the selection criteria for sampling. Due to this shift client data collection was conducted over sp ring and summer months, whereas in HIA 2010 the data collection was conducted in the spring. Summary of Analytical Approach 2.7 The analytical approach in this report makes use of all usable responses from the two surveys. In ethodology underlying the descriptive tabulations of the weighted this section, we review the m survey data we present. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 37

53 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients 2.7.1 Weighting Survey Data At the agency level, 32,677 agencies responded to enough questions on the Agency Survey to be ency Survey data. At the client level, 60,122 clients included in the analysis sample for the Ag 42 provided enough information on the survey to be retained in the analysis sample. All usable responses to the Agency Survey and Client Survey have been weighted. Survey weights are the mechanism used to inflate the sample to the level of the population. A survey weight is a number that may be viewed as the number of “similar” units in the population that the given sampled unit or an individual represents. For HIA 2014, the unit could be an agency, a program, a household, client depending on the data being addressed. Using clients as an example, a client’s survey weight is the number of “similar” clients in the population that the given sampled client represents. As such, pling of clients. For example, within a given program visit, if one survey weights account for the sam client out of 20 is sampled, a weight of 20 is used to account for each of the sampled clients . representing 20 clients in the population) Survey weights also account for sample losses (i .e., nonresponse) throughout the stages of sampling and data collection. Across the various sources of data for HIA 2014, those sample losses were in the form of food banks declining to participate in the study; agencies from participating food banks ng to complete the Agency Survey; program visits that did not occur; and clients who did not faili complete the Client Survey. The total weighted N that appears in each data table in this report therefore is the sum of the weighted number of cases used in that a nalysis, incorporating both the weighted number of responses and adjustments for sample losses. Further detail on the computation of the survey weights appears in Section 4.1.1, and in the Technical Volume. Programs covered by these surveys include both e mergency and nonemergency food programs. As described previously, the Westat team worked with Feeding America to identify two broad food program type groupings: meal programs and grocery programs (see Section 2.6.1 for descriptions of the program types). W estat developed weights that may be used to produce client count estimates by meal or grocery program type, as well as other characteristics of clients. These weights account for the approach that was used for the Client Survey in sampling meal and grocery programs separately, for seasonal patterns in program utilization, and for client duplication (i.e., multiple visits to . programs by the same client) 42 A case was included in the analysis sample if at least 50 percent of the core survey items that all respondents were eligible to answer were in fact answered. Fe wer than 50 percent of these responses provided too little data for the case to be validly included in analyses. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 38

54 2 Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing Data about Food Programs and Clients 2.7.2 Valid Survey Responses survey responses. These The tables in this report commonly display percentage distributions of valid percentages rely on valid responses, total weighted N, and weighted nonresponse. Valid responses occur when a survey respondent is eligible to answer a question and chooses an answer that is one of the presented response options. T otal weighted N is the weighted number of units (agencies, programs, households, or individual clients) who were eligible to respond to a particular survey item, regardless of whether the respondent actually provided a valid response. Consequently, total w eighted N includes both answers provided to a question and nonresponse. Weighted nonresponse for the Agency Survey and Client Survey accounts for cases that have missing data due to a participating respondent not answering a question. In the few questions where “don’t know” or “I’d prefer not to answer” were presented as response options, endorsement of that option is treated as nonresponse. The percentages in the tables reflect the total weighted number of valid responses in d N minus weighted nonresponse in the denominator. In addition to the numerator and total weighte reporting the total weighted N in each table, we report the aggregate of all sources of weighted nonresponse, labeled as “weighted nonreporting” in the tables. hted N In Chapters 4 and 5 total weig and weighted nonreporting are only listed for “all households,” not for any household subtypes that appear in the tables. These additional household type statistics are available from Feeding America upon request. Due to skip patterns within the su rvey, some respondents were not eligible to answer some questions based on their previous answers, and the computerized survey skipped those questions. In such cases the skipped questions are called valid skips. Valid skips are not included in the total ighted N since the respondent was not eligible to answer the question. we 2.7.3 Tabular Presentation In Chapter 3 of this report there are two types of tables presented: agency level and program level. - present weighted percentage level tables Each table type is specified in the table title. Agency level tables present weighted percentage distributions by distributions by type of agency. Program - level tables are percentages of type of program operated by the agencies. Percentages in the agency - level tables are - ted number of agencies reporting, and those in the program the total weigh percentages of the total weighted number of programs operated by the agencies. Many of the - program level tables address only food programs operated by the agencies. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 39

55 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing and 5 of this report, we present data on clients’ households and on individual clients. In Chapters 4 Table titles indicate whether the table is at the level of clients’ households or individual clients. Household data grocery services (since the include the weighted number of households receiving whole household receives food), plus the weighted number of households of the individual clients 43 Individual client receiving meal services (representing the broader household of a single client). ges of individual food recipients, multiplying each grocery household data include weighted percenta by the number of household members, and including the single food recipients at meal programs. onses, In some tables we present a measure of central tendency. Given the distribution among resp the weighted sum of all particular responses divided by the weighted number of total — the mean can be skewed by a small subset of extremely large or small values. We therefore — valid responses rely also on the median and mode as measures of central te ndency. The median is the value that divides the ordered distribution in half: 50 percent of the weighted responses have smaller values than the median and 50 percent have higher values. The mode is the value most frequently cited among the valid responses . All the data in the report are estimates based on survey responses that are weighted to reflect the entire Feeding America network. As an estimate, each percentage has a margin of error such that the or slightly lower than that shown. A 90 percent true value in the population may be slightly higher confidence interval indicates a range of values that contains the true value with 90 percent probability. Appendix C includes the tables from the main text, indicating for each percentage nd upper end of the 90 percent confidence interval. For each estimate, there is a estimate the lower a All 90 percent probability that the true value in the population falls within the displayed interval. statistical significance indicated in the report is based on the 90 perc ent confidence interval. 2.7.4 Client Counts We present estimates for both duplicated and unduplicated client counts. Duplicated counts times clients are reached through food distributions during a given effectively count the number of These estimates count clients each time they receive food: for time period (week, month, or year). 43 In all tables in Chapters 4 and 5, the weight used is a monthly weight reflecting the number of unduplicated individual clients served by the Feeding America network in a typical month, or reflecting the number of unduplicated households of clients served by the Feeding America network in a typical month. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 40

56 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect ing meal programs, that is each time an individual receives a meal; and for grocery programs, each time an individual and their household members receive groceries. The counts inc lude each member of a household for each grocery distribution. Unduplicated counts focus on the number of unique individuals served. Unduplicated counts recognize that any client may visit programs repeatedly, and unduplicated count, the household that comes every month these counts adjust for repetition. In the . We present to get groceries from a grocery program will be counted only once in annual counts weekly, monthly, and annual duplicated and unduplicated count estimates in tables. This information 44 is displayed by program type and by client demographics. Sampling Challenges and Practical Constraints Affecting Precision 2.7.5 of Estimates There are several additional challenges and constraints on sampling and implementation that udy. occurred during the st established research - operates as an attempt to balance well HIA methodology with the realities of the logistics of a field data collection in a varied and sometimes ementation unpredictable environment. Consequently, several elements of the study design and impl must be considered as context in interpreting study findings as they have the potential to affect the nature of the probability sample and the precision of the estimates. Although the study’s statistical experts implemented corrections for these sources of bias whenever possible, such corrections cannot completely erase the potential for bias. Thus, while we believe the estimates to be as accurate ighly as possible, they should be interpreted in the context of field data that are rarely as precise as h controlled, statistically ideal probability samples. The Client Survey sample design was a probability sample with an allocation of the number of program visits for the Client Survey determined individually for each food bank. The selection of agenc ies and programs was then done with probability proportionate to size and was designed to ensure that agencies and programs that served the most clients and distributed the most food had the highest probability of inclusion in the sample. Visit allocation numbers that would be optimal for highly precise national estimates were not practical for implementation by food banks with limited resources for data collection. To ensure that 44 - dual sampling approach that we s the frame The unique set of weights used to produce client count estimates reflect employed for Client Survey data collection. This approach permitted independent samples from separate sampling frame - Details on the dual frames for clients serviced by meal programs and clients served by grocery programs. approac h and estimator appear in the Technical Volume. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 41

57 2 Data about Food Programs and Clients ing Meeting the Challenge of Collect made with input from food banks could carry out the data collection as designed allocations were Feeding America to balance food bank size with operational capacities. Some allocations were reduced or supplemented after the initial sample was drawn if food banks found that they had fewer ch ensured that assigned program visits would be more or greater resources available. This approa likely to be implemented, which is preferable to missed visits due to operational limitations. Other practical constraints stem from the challenge of implementing Client Survey data collection during t he assigned days and times. Although food banks were urged to avoid rescheduling days and times of visits specified during Stage 3 of the sampling process (see Section 2.1.2), it was necessary at times due to misreported hours of operation on the Agency Su rvey, changes in program food distribution schedules, and challenges related to staffing, equipment resources, and weather. These changes from the randomly assigned windows may introduce some bias in estimates because they probabili sample design that could not be corrected through weighting. are departures from the ty In the sample design process allocations were further limited to a maximum of one meal program and one grocery program per sampled agency, and one distribution site for multisite programs, to 45 maximize the number of agencies included in data collection. This approach to allocation, while necessary, resulted in varying probabilities of selection of programs and program clients across food banks, potentially affecting the precision of national e stimates. Additionally, some agencies may not have reported on all of their large programs within the Agency Survey. Because the frame of programs eligible for the Client Survey was drawn from those reported in the Agency Survey, agencies and programs not listed were omitted from the sampling frame. In other cases, agencies and programs were listed on the agency list or the Agency Surveys, but the indicators of agency or program size (pounds distributed to the agency by the food bank, or number of clients the programs reported serving) were either missing or inaccurate. At times, this resulted in agencies or programs that were very large yet not sampled. In cases where it was discovered that ey were added to the Client very large agencies or programs had not been listed or sampled, th based sampling selection - Survey sample post - hoc rather than as a part of the overall probability scheme. At times additional distribution sites were also added to the sample within large programs. In some cases, these additions created exceptions to the rule described above of not more than one meal and one grocery program per agency. 45 greater than variation agencies was Following the HIA 2010 study, an analysis determined that variation between lients) would lead to better within agencies. Thus, including a larger sample of agencies (rather than a larger sample of c precision in the survey estimates. Consequently, the decision for HIA 2014 was to include as large a sample of agencies as possible. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 42

58 2 ing Data about Food Programs and Clients Meeting the Challenge of Collect Experts at Westat and on the Feeding America Technical Advisory Group worked together to er details of the challenges and the develop procedures to account for these challenges. Furth solutions implemented appear in the Technical Volume. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 43

59 Describing the Feeding America National 3 Network Key Findings Feeding America member food banks partner with more than 46,000 charitable  food programs, including agencies. These partner agencies operate more than 58,000 nearly 19,000 programs that provide meals for onsite consumption, and more than 39,000 programs that provide groceries for use at home.  Agencies also provide many other services, including outreach and application assistance to hel p clients access food - related benefits programs such as the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), nutrition education, and non food - assistance with clothing, job training, or legal issues.  Programs rely heavily on volunteers. In a typic al month, nearly 2 million volunteers dedicate more than 8.4 million hours of their time to hunger relief.  Approximately 62 percent of the food distributed by the programs comes from Feeding America member food banks, but almost 28 percent of programs repo rted having less food available than required to meet client needs. Feeding America’s Network Is Large and Multifaceted 3.1 Feeding America food banks provide food and services to people in all and their partner agencies 50 states, Washington, DC, and Puer to Rico. We estimate that the Feeding America network is currently serving 46.5 million unique individuals in 15.5 million households annually across the United States. The number of clients served and other findings from the Cli ent Survey are further ussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Feeding America carries out this work through the coordinated disc efforts of food banks, their partner agencies, and the food programs operated by those agencies. its characteristi cs of partner agencies in the This chapter describes the structure of the network, network, the services the partner agencies provide, and the challenges they face in delivering charitable food assistance, as reported on the Agency Survey. 3.1.1 Organization of the Network eding America national office solicits donations of food, grocery As described in Chapter 1, the Fe items, and funds for network food banks. Food banks are charitable, nonprofit organizations that Hunger in America 2014 National Report 44

60 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network solicit and store donated food until it is distributed to charitable agencies that serve peop le in need in their service areas. Together, Feeding America and member food banks raise awareness about the ger; advocate on behalf of food issue of hun insecure people; and support programs and services that help people access the food they need. Like th e structure of the Feeding America network, food banks each have a network of partner agencies to which they distribute food. Agencies are typically nonprofit or religious organizations that vary substantially in size and scope and operate one or more emer gency or nonemergency food programs. These programs are the mechanism for distribution of food directly to individuals in need. In addition to distributing food through their partner agencies, some food banks also Hunger in their own programs. For the purposes of distribute food directly to people through America 2014 provide programs are categorized into meal programs, which food , (HIA 2014) prepared meals or snacks on site or in the client’s home; and grocery programs, which distribute nonprepared foods, groceries, and other household supplies for off - site use such as for preparation in the client’s home. As of October 2012, the Feeding America network had 202 member food banks. Of these, 186 HIA 2014 Agency Survey data collection, and 178 continued participation participated in the through the Client Survey data collection. An additional 10 PDOs participated independently of their network member food bank partners during the Agency Survey data collection, and nine of those PDOs continued on through the Cl ient Survey data collection. A map of the service areas of - all Feeding America food banks appears in Figure 3 1, highlighting the food banks that participated HIA 2014 in . 3.1.2 Number and Types of Partner Agencies ood banks report partnering Feeding America network of f At the time of the Agency Survey, the with more than 46,000 agencies to help distribute food to clients through their programs. As noted in Chapter 2, Section 2.7.1, all data reported in Chapters 3 through 5 are weighted data. Thus, the weights applied to the study sample’s data that allow data presented in these chapters are based on us to estimate the characteristics of the entire network, including both food banks and agencies that participated in HIA 2014, and those that did not. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 45

61 Hunger in America 2014 National Report 1. - Hunger in America 2014 food bank service areas Figure 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 3 46

62 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 46 are faith based or located in a religious institution. A majority of the agencies As shown in Table 3 - 1, religious organizations ma ke up 62.4 percent of the food banks’ agencies. The next largest not faith based. Only 2.7 are group, at 28.4 percent, is other nonprofit or private organizations that are governmental agencies, 3.1 percent are Community Action Programs percent of the agencies (CAPs), and 3.3 percent are does another type of agency that not fit into any of the other categories. CAPs provide services, assistance, and other activities aimed at reducing poverty in th e community. Governmental agencies include state and/or local government agencies that are not a CAP. More nonprofit and private organizations, either faith based than 90 percent of food banks’ agencies are or other nonprofit. - Table 3 gencies by subtype Distribution of a 1. Percentage Type of agency 3.1% Community Action Program (CAP) 62.4% Faith based or located in a religious institution Governmental agency 2.7% Some other nonprofit or private organization 28.4% Other 3.3% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting agencies 223 All agencies weighted N 46,117 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q1. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Some other nonprofit or private organization may include food banks, social service agencies, or other nonprofits unaffiliated with religious or governmental entities. “Other” was a separate response option on the survey. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs ount for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc surve y nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b ecause of valid skips. 46 nation s part of their contract with Feeding America, member food banks agree to prohibit discrimi A in the provision by their member agencies of services . Hunger in America 2014 National Report 47

63 3.1.3 Types of Programs Operated by the Agencies - food programs. Table 3 Agencies serve clients through a variety of food and non 2 shows the - percentage of agencies operating different types of programs. As described in Chapter 2, agencies could operate food or non - food programs. Food programs can be divi ded more broadly into those that provide meals and those that provide groceries. Non - food programs include food - related benefits programs and other non - food programs . Food - related benefits typically involve outreach, education, information and referrals, a nd/or application assistance to obtain federal or state food assistance benefits; they also encompass nutrition education programs, such as workshops on food programs have a primary purpose other than meal programs, grocery healthy eating. Other non - progra - related benefit programs such as clothing/furniture assistance; legal assistance; ms, or food job training; or financial assistance, such as assistance with taxes or budgeting education. Most agencies (64.9 percent) report having food programs only, 3.5 p ercent of agencies report non - food programs only, and 31.6 percent of agencies r eport - having both food and non food programs only meal (Table 3 2). Among agencies with food programs, 24.9 percent of agencies operat e - programs, 65.5 percent operate only grocery programs, and 9.5 percent of agencies operate both 3). meal and grocery programs (Table 3 - food programs - Distribution of agencies by food or non 2. - Table 3 Type of agency Count Percentage 29,454 Agencies with food programs only 64.9% Agencies with both food programs and non - food programs 14,354 31.6% 3.5% Agencies with non - food programs only 1,566 100% 45,374 Total 744 Weighted nonreporting agencies All agencies weighted N 46,117 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. - food programs. Food - related benefits” as well as other non The category “non related benefits programs - - food programs” comprises “food food programs have a - ls in need to procure meals, groceries, or nongrocery products. Other non provide resources that enable individua primary purpose other than assistance with food/benefit procurement, e.g., assistance with clothing. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Perc NOTE: entages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs g agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participatin s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data valid skips. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 48

64 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network - 3. Distribution of agencies by meal or grocery programs, among agencies with food Table 3 programs Type of agency Count Percentage 10,925 Meal programs only 24.9% Grocery programs only 28,709 65.5% 4,173 9.5% Both meal and grocery programs Total 43,808 100% All agencies weighted N 43,808 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: Estimates are based on participating agencies’ listings of the type of program exclude valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. for each program they operate, weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating agencies and food banks. Because only listed programs were available, no count or estimate of programs not reported by participating agencies is possible. All estimates are weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weigh ted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Looking more closely at the distribution of programs across the entire network (Table 3 - 4), grocery programs comprise 41.1 percent of total programs, followed by other non - food programs (37.0 percent), meal programs (19.9 pe rcent), and food - related benefits programs (2.0 percent). Grocery programs are more than twice as common as meal programs within the network food programs 3 2). In total, an estimated 58,09 - (Figure 3 operating within the Feeding America are network. This nu mber, however, does not reflect the number of distribution sites the programs operate. These distribution sites range from single sites to hundreds of sites. Table 3 - 4. Distribution of programs by type of food or non - food program Type of program Percent age Food programs Meal 19.9% Grocery 41.1% Non - food programs Food - related benefits 2.0% food Other non - 37.0% 100% Total All programs weighted N 95,150 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. “food - food programs. Food related benefits” as well as other non related benefits programs The category “non - food programs” comprises - - provide resources that enable individuals in need to procure meals, groceries, or nongrocery products. Other non - food programs have a primary purpose other than assi for definitions stance with food/benefit procurement, e.g., assistance with clothing. See Section 2. 1.3 of program types. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: Estimates are based on participating agencies’ listings of the type of program for de valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. exclu only each program they operate, weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating agencies and food banks. Because listed programs were available, no count or estimate of programs not reported by participating agencies is possible. All estimates are the weighted weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables becau se of valid skips. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 49

65 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Distribution of meal and grocery programs, among food programs Figure 3 2. - N = 18,967 33% Grocery Programs Meal Programs N = 39,127 67% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. Total weighted N = 58,093 . Numbers may not sum due to rounding. The low percentage of programs offering food - related benefits assistance is striking ; however, agencies may be wrapping that type of assistance into the activit ies at meal or grocery programs, or referring clients to other food related benefits programs as needed rather than operating programs - dedicated to food - related benefits assistance. The large percentage of non - food programs reflects the diversity of ways i n which the agencies seek to serve their clients’ needs, providing multiservice environments that reach beyond hunger relief. related Agencies provide services to clients through numerous types of meal, grocery, and food - and food programs. Tables 3 benefits programs and through non - - 5 and 3 - 6 the types of meal show grocery programs, respectively, which offered by agencies in the network. Appendix B provides are There are - descriptions of each program type. 5). The 15 types of meal programs reported (Table 3 most frequently reported meal programs include kitchens (19.8 percent), residential programs (11.5 percent), and Afterschool Snack programs (11.2 percent). Nearly one t hird of the meal programs serve children (29.8 percent), and 11.6 percent of meal progra ms serve seniors. Home - delivered meal programs such as Meal a large base of seniors, but s on Wheels (5.2 percent) serve other nonseniors such as individuals with disabilities are also eligible for this type of program. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 50

66 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Table 3 - 5. Distribution of meal programs by subtype, categorized by program target age group Percentage Meal programs Mixed age group Community kitchens 3.4% - Food bank 1.8% operated meal program Group home 7.8% Kitchen 19.8% Rehabilitation program 3.8% Residential program 11.5% 8.4% Shelter Transitional housing 2.1% 58.6% Subtotal Children Afterschool snack 11.2% Child congregate feeding programs (non Kids Cafe) 3.0% - Day care 7.3% 3.7% Kids Cafe programs Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) 4.6% Subtotal 29.8% Seniors delivered meal (or Meals on Wheels) 5.2% Home - 6.4% Senior congregate meal Subt otal 11.6% 100% Total All meal programs weighted N 18,967 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. may in some cases serve nonseniors as well. Programs serving seniors NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. ipating agencies’ listings of the type of program for Estimates are based on partic each program they operate, weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating agencies and food banks. Because only All estimates are listed programs were available, no count or estimate of programs not rep orted by participating agencies is possible. ted weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weigh es valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It exclud skips. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 51

67 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Table 3 - 6. Distribution of grocery programs by subtype, categorized by program target age group Percentage Grocery programs Mixed age group 1.1% Community gardens Food pantries 80.9% 2.3% Home - delivered grocery program 3.7% Mobile pantries/mobile markets School pantry programs 0.5% Subtotal 88.5% Children BackPack Programs 4.2% 4.2% Sub total Seniors Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) 4.5% Senior brown bag/food box distribution 1.2% Senior grocery program 1.4% in time delivery 0.2% - Senior mobile pantry/just - Subtotal 7.3% Total 100% 39,127 All grocery programs weighted N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. and other The Agency Survey listed three types of pantries noted here under food pantries: Food bank operated pantries, food pantries, pantries. Programs serving seniors may in some cases serve non - seniors as well. Not every state is authorized to operate CSFP. Currently CSFP is authorized to operate in 39 states, the CSFP is administered by states. District of Columbia, and two Indian Tribal Organizations. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are NOTE: calculated from valid responses which exclude valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Estimates are based on participating agencies’ listings of the type of program for each program they operate, weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonpar ticipating agencies and food banks. Because only listed programs were available, no count or estimate of programs not reported by participating agencies is possible. All estimates are weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food ba nks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables becau se of valid skips. are 10 types of grocery programs reported. The m ost commonly reported grocery programs There serve a span of age groups, with food pantries being the most frequently reported grocery program ent (80.9 percent). In contrast to the 29.8 perc ent of meal programs that serve children and 11.6 perc children (BackPack that serve rcent of grocery programs serve of meal programs seniors, only 4.2 pe ) and CSFP 4.5 percent; Senior Programs 4.2 percent rams serve 7.3 percent of grocery prog seniors ( ent; Senior mobile brown bag/food box distribution 1.2 percent; Senior grocery program 1.4 perc - in - time delivery 0.2 percent), although children and seniors could certainly be served by pantry/just - age programs as well. mixed Federal or local programs that fund meals or groceries, such as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) are not listed under meal or Hunger in America 2014 National Report 52

68 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network rather than food grocery programs because these program types represent specific funding sources program types. Although agencies may operate such programs, they would do so by listing the type of program through which they distribute the actual food, such as listing a daycare as type of meal sm of CACFP. Agencies may also provide assistance program operated under the funding mechani - to clients in applying for benefits from some of these programs through a food related benefits program. Food - related benefits programs provide services such as outreach, education, referral, and/or applic benefits programs are federal assistance - ation assistance. Four out of five food related Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, programs (i.e., SBP, NSLP, SNAP, and or children (SBP and Infants, and Children [ WIC ] ). Two are aimed solely at assistance with benefits f NSLP outreach), and one is aimed at assistance with benefits for pregnant and postpartum women The in addition to children up to age five (WIC outreach). child - focused programs ma k e up 18.4 aimed are percent of the food - related benefits programs ; none of the food - related benefits programs - specifically at seniors. The most commonly reported food — SNAP is related benefits program - related benefits programs in assistance/outreach (42.1 percent). In addition, 34.1 percent of food are nutrition education programs aimed at utilizing program groceries and meals and/or the network improving health. Agencies also offer a wide variety of services to their clients through non - food programs. The most urniture assistance (17.5 percent of other non clothing/f is - food program frequently reported non - - food programs); but other non food programs include general information and referrals, housing assistance, utility and heat assistance (LIHEAP), health clinics, and many other types of non - food assistance. For - example, 44.2 percent of the other non fall food programs agencies report operating under other types of programs beyond those listed on the survey, reflecting the diversity in scope of on. programs offered, customized to meet the needs of each local populati 3.2 - Relief Services to encies’ Programs Provide Hunger The Ag Clients Feeding America’s partner agencies and their programs are on the forefront of service delivery. As oad array of noted in Section 3.1, they comprise a diverse group of organizations offering a br services. They are organized and staffed in ways that allow them to carry out their mission while remaining focused and operating within what is typically a limited budget. They obtain the food they Hunger in America 2014 National Report 53

69 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network eir Feeding America food bank partners, and they distribute from various sources including th distribute these meals and groceries to a diverse client base. Although the agencies and their programs employ creative strategies to manage their clients’ needs, many perceive an increasing need for service s in their service areas and some report struggling to accommodate client demand. 3.2.1 Agency Oversight and Paid Staff Agencies are often governed by an oversight body such as a board of directors to ensure that they is y. Within the Feeding America network of partner agencies this are meeting their mission effectivel being governed by a board of directors or 82 percent of agencies report particularly true, as nearly other formal group that provides an rtner advice and guidance on their operations. Thus, most pa agencies are benefitting from organized oversight. In contrast to the high percentage of agencies with board oversight, only 49.0 percent of partner agencies report having paid staff working for them to implement their mission (Table 3 - 7 ). Agencies - hour work week), (assuming a 40 on the survey time equivalents staffing in full - were asked to report time individuals could be recorded as equivalent to a full in which multiple part - - time employee to t staffing models. The median number of allow for comparability across agencies despite differen five, or the equivalent of 200 staff hours per week. These paid staff, is time equivalent staff - paid full however, may or may not have been engaged consistently in food program activities, since many d providing diverse services. The overall pattern of support for agency missions, agencies reporte therefore, is that most agencies are operating with the advice and oversight of a board of directors or lf. Agencies and their similar committee, but only half have paid staff working on their beha programs consequently rely heavily on volunteer efforts. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 54

70 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Table 3 - 7 . Agencies employing paid staff and the median number of full - time equivalent paid staff, by type of agency Type of agency Employs paid staff Median number of FTEs 3.0 65.5% Community Action Program (CAP) Faith based or located in a religious institution 31.7% 3.0 Governmental agency 83.3% 5.0 Some other nonprofit or private organization 80.3% 8.0 Other 64.0% 5.0 49.0% 5.0 All agencies agencies 135 Weighted nonreporting All agencies weighted N 46,117 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q3 and Q3A. Some other nonprofit or private organization may include food banks, social service agencies, or other nonprofits unaffiliate d with governmental entities. “Other” was a separate response option on the survey. religious or All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc ount for anks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food b eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b ecause of valid skips. 3.2.2 Program Volunteers O n the program level, food programs rely on a large volunteer workforce to ensure that they can serve their clients. On the Agency Survey, respondents were asked to provide information on the ed, and the number of hours number of volunteers in an average month for each program describ Agency Survey respondents were total worked by volunteers in an average month for each program. only asked to report about their program volunteers, so data shown do not include other volunteer activities within the Feeding Amer ica network at the agency or food bank level such as agency office staff volunteers or food bank warehouse volunteers. In an average month there are 618,000 give volunteers who 000 time to grocery volunteers who give time to meal programs, and 1,338, programs across the entire Feeding America network of food programs, for a total of nearly al, these 8 - million volunteers across the entire network in an average month (Table 3 2 ). In tot their time in a typical month. Breaking this more than 8.4 million hours of volunteers contribute down to the level of individual programs (Table 3 ), the median number of volunteers at a single 9 - program in a typical month is slightly higher for grocery programs than meal programs: 18 t an average grocery program compared to 12 volunteers per month at an volunteers per month a average meal program. Conversely, the median number of hours worked by all volunteers at a typical program per month is slightly higher for meal programs than grocery programs: 80 hours of total volunteer time per month for an average meal program compared to 60 hours of total volunteer Hunger in America 2014 National Report 55

71 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network time per month for an average grocery program, with a median of 60 hours per month per program across all programs that use volunteers. food Table 3 8 . Total number of volunteers and total hours volunteered per month, among - programs with volunteers Type of program All food Total number of volunteers and Meal Grocery programs total hours volunteered programs programs 1,338, 618,000 000 1,956, 000 Total number of volunteers per month 0 0 0 Weighted nonreporting programs All programs weighted N 13, 838 35,901 49,740 Total hours volunteered per month 000 8,406, 000 000 2,772, 5,634, Weighted nonreporting programs 148 331 479 49,740 13, 838 35,901 All programs weighted N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q23 and Q23A. Total weighted N differs across items because valid skips are not included. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for include survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent s igible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables bec el ause of valid skips. 9 . Median number of volunteers and median number of hours volunteered per Table 3 - , among programs with volunteers program in an average month Type of program All food Median number of volunteers and Meal Grocery programs programs median total hours volunteered programs Median number of volunteers per program 12 18 16 0 Weighted nonreporting programs 0 0 49,740 35,901 13, All programs weighted N 838 80 60 60 Median total hours volunteered per program Weighted nonreporting programs 148 331 479 838 49,740 All programs weighted N 35,901 13, Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q23 and Q23A. Total weighted N differs across items because valid skips are not included. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonres ponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc ount for survey nonr esponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b ecause of valid skips. Programs report that their v – olunteers are drawn from all age groups youth, adult nonseniors, and are ). Across all food programs, 54.4 percent of the volunteers 10 - seniors (Table 3 adults between the ages of 19 and 59 (60.5 percent and 52.0 percent for meal and grocery programs, respectively). Hunger in America 2014 National Report 56

72 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Overall, 38.2 percent of the volunteers seniors aged 60 or older (29.8 percent for meal programs are and 41.4 percent for grocery programs). A smaller but nonnegligible 7.4 percent of the volunteers are age 18 or younger (9.7 percent for meal programs and 6.6 percent for grocery programs). Age range of volunteers, among programs with volunteers during the past - 10. Table 3 12 months Type of program All food Meal Grocery Age ranges of volunteers programs programs programs 7.4% 18 years of age and younger 9.7% 6.6% 54.4% 19 to 59 years of age 60.5% 52.0% 38.2% 60 years of age and older 29.8% 41.4% 100% 100% All ages 100% Weighted nonreporting programs 167 280 447 All programs weighted N 49,740 13,838 35,901 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q23C. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Total weighted N differs across items because valid skips are not included. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent igible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables bec ause of el valid skips. Programs are often able to obtain the volunteers they need and once volunteers are engaged with a program the y tend to stay engaged. More than 50 percent of both me al and grocery programs report 1 1 - ). Obtaining them does, however, pose a substantial no difficulty in obtaining volunteers (Table 3 challenge for a small percentage of programs, as 8.1 percent of meal programs and 6.7 perce nt of grocery programs indicate having a lot of difficulty. While there is some level of difficulty in obtaining volunteers, the level of difficulty involved in no diff 60 percent of programs report iculty in retaining the retaining them is lower. More than have, and few programs report a lot of difficulty in retention. Overall, the volunteer volunteers they workforce supporting the Feeding America network is a large group eager to offer assistance and ing. committed to the work they are do Hunger in America 2014 National Report 57

73 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network - 1 . Programs reporting difficulty obtaining and retaining volunteers by degree of Table 3 1 difficulty, among programs with volunteers during the past 12 months Type of program All food Grocery Meal programs Degree of difficulty programs programs Obtaining volunteers 51.9% 58.0% 56.3% No difficulty 36.6% 40.0% Some difficulty 35.3% A lot of difficulty 8.1% 6.7% 7.1% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting programs 182 434 617 All programs weighted N 13,838 35,901 49,740 Retaining volunteers 67.8% No difficulty 61.3% 70.3% 26.9% 33.9% Some difficulty 28.9% A lot of difficulty 2.8% 3.4% 4.8% 100% 100% 100% Total 265 Weighted nonreporting programs 697 962 All programs weighted N 13,838 35,901 49,740 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q23D. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Total weighted N differs across items because valid skips are not included. lid responses which All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from va NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs eighted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are w survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent s eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can v ary across tables because of valid skips. 3.2.3 Sources of Food — Food Bank, Donations, Purchasing The 58,093 food programs within the national Feeding America network acquire the food they distribute from various sources, including Feeding America member food banks, other food banks, donations, and purchasing to cover gaps. Looking at the sources of the food distributed by food - 1 from Feeding America member programs (Table 3 come 2 ), the majority of the pounds of food ound age). Other sources include food that was purchased food banks (61.8 percent of total p (21.6 percent of total poundage), donations (12.8 percent of total poundage), and food from other food banks (3.9 percent of total poundage). There are differences, however, between grocery programs and m eal programs. For grocery programs, the vast majority of the pounds of food me from a Feeding America member food bank (70.0 percent), whereas for meal o distributed c programs, less than half of th rcent). A me from that source (44.5 pe e total pounds of food served co from food that was comes substantial percentage of the food served by meal programs also purchased ( percent). The difference in the percentage of food poundage that is purchased may 42.5 Hunger in America 2014 National Report 58

74 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network y versus meal programs. Grocery program stem at least in part from the distribution model of grocer distributions may contain whatever items are currently available from food banks and donations, thus purchasing can be minimized. Meal programs, in contrast, may need to purchase specific supplemental items to prepar e complete meals, necessitating more purchasing. - 1 2 . Average percentage of total food distributed during the past 12 months, by source Table 3 Type of program All food Meal Grocery programs programs programs Source of food 10.2% 14.0% 12.8% Donations 44.5% Feeding America food bank(s) 70.0% 61.8% 3.9% Other food bank 2.8% 4.4% 42.5% Purchased 21.6% 11.6% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting programs 1,455 805 650 39,127 58,093 All programs weighted N 18,967 2014 Agency Survey, Q26. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Data Source: Hunger in America Some responses from the survey were collapsed into broader categories for analysis. id responses which NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from val exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are we ighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent s eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can va ry across tables because of valid skips. purchased var ). For meal programs, the items y The items that are 3 1 by program type (see Table 3 - purchased by the largest percentages of programs include primarily perishables, paper goods, and utensils: milk, yogu rt, and cheese (47.9 percent); paper plates, napkins, and plastic silverware (46.3 percent); meat, poultry, and fish (43.9 percent); and fresh fruits and vegetables (43.7 percent). are For grocery programs, even the items purchased most often purchased by a smaller percentage of programs and include bread, rice, cereals, and pasta (21.4 percent); canned or frozen fruits and vegetables (18.0 percent); nonmeat proteins such as beans, eggs, peanut butter, and nuts (15.8 percent). percent); and meat, poultry, and fish (16.9 Hunger in America 2014 National Report 59

75 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network - 3 . Frequently purchased items in the past 12 months, by source 1 Table 3 Type of program Meal All food Grocery Type of item frequently purchased programs programs programs Food Bread, rice, cereals, and pasta 41.0% 21.4% 27.7% Canned or frozen fruits and vegetables 18.0% 23.2% 34.3% Fats, oils, condiments, and sweets 28.3% 6.0% 13.2% Fresh fruits and vegetables 43.7% 10.5% 21.2% Meat, poultry, and fish 43.9% 15.8% 24.8% 47.9% 10.0% 22.2% Milk, yogurt, and cheese proteins 22.3% 16.9% 33.6% beans, eggs, peanut – Nonmeat butter, and nuts food Non - 9.6% Baby products (e.g., diapers, wipes, diaper 5.0% 6.5% rash cream) Household products (e.g., laundry detergent) 33.7% 8.5% 16.6% Paper plates, napkins, plastic silverware 46.3% 8.0% 20.4% Personal care products (e.g., soap, toothpaste, 12.2% 20.0% 8.5% deodorant) 857 Weighted nonreporting programs 2,063 1,206 18,967 39,127 All programs weighted N 58,093 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q25. response options were occasionally, rarely, and never. Other Survey items in this table allow respondents to mark more than one response, thus percentages may add to more than 100%. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. n Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which All data were weighted as described i NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent eligible to answer the question. It incl udes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. - 1 , food programs also receive food and grocery products via local donations. 2 As noted in Table 3 Common sources of these donations include churche s and religious congregations, local merchants 14). For each donation source - and government programs (Table 3 , and farmers, local food drives listed, more than half of the grocery programs indicate receiving donations from that source. For meal programs, a pproximately half of the programs report receiving donations from government programs, local merchants and farmers, and churches and religious congregations. In addition, more ves. quarter of meal programs report receiving donations from local food dri - than one Hunger in America 2014 National Report 60

76 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network - Programs reporting food donations during the past 12 months, by source 14. Table 3 Type of program Meal All food Grocery Source of donation programs programs programs 60.7% Churches and religious congregations 48.5% 66.4% 55.4% 65.3% 62.1% Government programs Local food drives 26.3% 43.6% 51.7% Local merchants and farmers 54.4% 56.1% 55.6% 1,783 Weighted nonreporting programs 781 1,002 39,127 18,967 All programs weighted N 58,093 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q24. Some responses from the survey were collapsed into broader categories for analysis. Survey items in this table allow respondents to mark more than one response, thus percentages may add to more than 100 percen t. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse f rom participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent s des missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of eligible to answer the question. It inclu valid skips. In summary, Feeding America food banks are the largest source of food for programs on average, but programs do still rely on other sources, particul arly donations and purchases. Meal programs, in particular, purchase a substantial percentage of the food they distribute. 3.2.4 Language Diversity of Food Program Clients On the Agency Survey food programs were asked to indicate the language diversity o f the clients they serve by specifying the languages their clients speak at home. Although most programs serve English - also serving clients who speak jority of food programs report speaking clients, the ma the predominant non rt that Spanish is languages other than English at home. Programs repo - in their homes. Of all programs reported, 99.0 percent serve English language that clients speak ients, while 61.7 percent serve speaking cl . English - Spanish in their homes clients who speak languages commonly sp Programs report that other oken at home by clients include Italian, Chinese, also indicated, suggesting the cultural and linguistic and Vietnamese, but many other languages are demonstrates that vast and breadth of the client base. The variability across clients in the network is the need for food assistance crosses many language and cultural groups across the country. For speaking at home, see Chapter 4. more information on languages that clients report Hunger in America 2014 National Report 61

77 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 3.2.5 Restrictions on Service Receipt The Agency Survey a sked respondents about any changes in the limitations on the frequency with which clients can receive food. Finding s suggest the programs perceive no significant change in the the food programs indicate limitations (Table 3 1 5 ). More than 8 percent of - that clients can get food more frequently than they could a year ago (5.3 percent of meal programs, 9.9 percent of the grocery programs, and 8.5 percent of all food programs). Approximately 4 percent of the food programs requently than they could a year ago (2.3 percent of the meal report that clients can get food less f programs, 5.0 percent of the grocery programs, and 4.1 percent of all food programs). Overall e findings suggest that, for the majority of the food programs, they do not see restrictions on servic receipt as having changed. - Programs indicating a change in limitations on clients’ frequency of use during the 5 . Table 3 1 past 12 months Type of program All food Meal Grocery Change in limitations programs programs programs more frequently Clients can get food 8.5% 9.9% 5.3% 2.3% 5.0% 4.1% Clients can get food less frequently 93.3% No change in frequency 86.3% 88.5% 4,997 Weighted nonreporting programs 2,296 2,701 All programs weighted N 39,127 18,967 58,093 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q37. Some responses from the survey were collapsed into broader categories for analysis. Respondents were asked to indicate yes/no to each type of change, thus percentages may sum to more than 100 percent. All data were weighted a s described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent eligible to answer the ques tion. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Programs’ Ability to Serve Clients 3.2.6 The Agency Survey collected data about the food programs’ ability to serve clients, specific ally whether the programs perceive the number of clients served this year as compared to the prior year to have changed, whether the programs have enough food to meet client needs, and whether that they perceive l, programs report ason. Overal programs are having to turn away clients for any re demand for food programs to have increased or stayed the same in the 12 months prior to the Hunger in America 2014 National Report 62

78 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network st of the food programs report survey. Mo having enough food to meet client needs, and the majority did not have to turn away c lients in the prior year. In terms of the number of clients served in the last year, more than ha lf of the food programs report perceiving an increase in the number of clients in the past year (Table 3 - 1 6 ). In looking at meal programs versus grocery progr ams, findings suggest that the increase in demand has been perceived more by the grocery programs than the meal programs, as 65.5 perc ent of grocery programs report e. an increase in clients compared to the 44.7 percent of meal programs that report an increas Programs reporting changes in the number of cli 1 6 . - ents compared to the prior year Table 3 Type of program All food Meal Grocery Volume of clients compared to prior year programs programs programs 58.9% Saw any increase 44.7% 65.5% 48.6% About the same 34.3% 27.6% 6.6% 6.9% 6.8% Saw any decrease 100% Total 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting programs 1,911 2,770 4,680 58,093 39,127 18,967 All programs weighted N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q38. Some responses from the survey were collapsed into broader categories for analysis. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs exclude nonresponse and valid ount for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc survey nonresponse from non participating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents ecause of eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b valid skips. When as ked whether programs had enough food to meet client needs in the last year, th e majority of programs indicate that they had at least enough food (85.1 percent of meal programs, 66.3 percent 7 ). Nonetheless, almost 1 of grocery programs, and 72.4 percent of all food programs; see Ta ble 3 - nt of the food programs report that they had less food than needed in the past year, 28 perce indicating that, for some food programs, there is still a shortage of food creating a situation where needs of all clients. they are not able to meet the Hunger in America 2014 National Report 63

79 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network - 7 . Programs reporting the degree to which they had food available to meet needs of Table 3 1 clients during the past 12 months Type of program All food Meal Grocery vailable to meet needs of clients programs F programs a programs ood 14.4% 14.3% 14.4% More food than needed 70.7% 52.0% 58.0% Enough food to meet needs Less food than needed 14.8% 33.7% 27.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 2,571 Weighted nonreporting programs 1,818 4,390 39,127 58,093 18,967 All programs weighted N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q39. Some responses from the survey were collapsed into broader categories for analysis. NOTE: responses which All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs ted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weigh s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent across tables because of eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary valid skips. The Agency Survey also asked programs whether clients were turned away from services in the last year. Of all the food programs, 72.7 percent indicate that no clients had been turned away in the last year (Table 3 - 1 8 ) . Among programs that did turn awa y clients, 32.8 percent report that they frequently or occasionally turned clients away because clients came more often than the program allowed, 30.3 percent frequently or occasionally turned clients away because the clie nts live outside the program’s service area, and 28.7 percent frequently or occasionally turned clients away because they ran out of food or other things the clients needed. A total of 20.6 percent of meal programs and 30.4 perc ent of grocery programs repo rt needing to turn away clients. Programs turning clients - 1 8 . Table 3 away for any reason during the p ast 12 months Type of program Grocery Meal All food programs programs programs Program turned clients away 20.6% 30.4% 27.3% Yes No 79.4% 69.6% 72.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 2,307 Weighted nonreporting programs 1,682 3,988 18,967 58,093 All programs weighted N 39,127 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q40. reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs es or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agenci s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but exc ludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 64

80 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Related and Non 3.3 Partner Agencies Provide Other Food Food - - Services The Feeding America network’s mission to relieve hunger is accomplished not only through food provision but also through the provision of services. Agencies and programs are vital parts of the social safety net in many communities; as such, they connect clients to information about other accessing benefits. These roles social services and help them navigate the often confusing process of have become particularly important during the recent recession, when so many households have struggled with new and deepening poverty. In addition to delving in depth into the food programs probed agencies and programs about their provision of food operated by the agencies, HIA 2014 - food services. related benefits and non - - related benefits As noted in Section 3.1.3, partner agencies provide many different types of food lude outreach, education, referral, and/or programs and non food services. Food related benefits inc - - application assistance with federal programs such as SBP, NSLP, SNAP, and WIC, as well as many food services include assistance - different types of nutrition education programs for clients. Non with clothing, furni ture, health, housing, legal issues, taxes, and more, both in the form of helping clients find needed resources, and helping them navigate government applications and requirements. 3.3.1 Services Related to Government Programs Many food program clients a lso qualify for or are already receivin g government aid (see Chapter 5 for more detail). One nutrition program serving many of the Feeding America network clients is SNAP . SNAP is a federal program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), but each state is responsible for distributing the SNAP benefits used to buy food. As of May 2013, 47 more than 15 percent of the U.S. population was receiving SNAP benefits. ny. Eligibility is The process of applying for SNAP and maintaining benefits can be confusing for ma ; and there are additional requirements for assets ome and — determined by inc in some states — 48 employment and citizenship for certain categories of recipients. Further, regulations governing 47 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Program Data: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” See http://www.fn s.usda.gov/PD/SNAPmain.htm . 48 Esa Eslami, Kai Filion, and Mark Strayer. (2011). “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Report es. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Nutrition Assistance Program Report Seri Households: Fiscal Year 2010,” 11 - No. SNAP CHAR. - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 65

81 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 49 eligibility, the process of applying, and the requirements for recertification vary across states. Although some states are moving toward an easier application process, applications are still lengthy 50 individuals and families. Maintaining benefit receipt is also challenging, as and confusing for many 51 beneficiaries must recertify their eligibility at regular intervals. Many Feeding America agencies help clients navigate these procedures (Table 3 - 19 ). In HIA 2014, percent of agencies report offering 22.7 help to clients in screening for SNAP eligibility; 25.0 percent aid for the application itself. Education about SNAP is even more common, with report offer ing providing help in agencies report 7.6 percent of 35.6 percent providing information. Finally, 1 recertification for SNAP. Table 3 - 19 . Agencies providing services related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and subtypes of services offered Type of SNAP service Percentage Agencies that provided a ny SNAP - related services 39.7% a Application assistance 25.0% a Education about the program 35.6% a 17.6% Recertification for the program a Screening for eligibility 22.7% Agencies that did not provide any SNAP 60.3% related services - nonreporting agencies 222 Weighted 46,117 All agencies weighted N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q10. a Percentages are of those agencies offering SNAP related services. The survey allowed respondents to mark all SNAP services that they - provide, thus percentages do not sum to the total percentage that provide any SNAP services. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skip s due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc ount for survey nonresponse from nonpart icipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b ecause of valid skips. agencies provide related services to - help as needed to clients, rather than offering SNAP In general, all clients at intake (Figure 3 3). Across all types of agencies, 34.2 percent offer SNAP - related - services to all clients, and 65.8 percent offer services only to se lected clients. 49 For more information, please see the USDA’s SNAP Policy Database: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data - products/snap - policy - database.aspx#.U5WxifldXLA . 50 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2014). “SNAP: Online: A Review of State Government SNAP Websites.” See . 05fa.pdf - 23 - ww.cbpp.org/files/8 http://w 51 Gretchen Rowe, Sam Hall, Carolyn T. O’Brien, Nancy M. Pindus, and Robin Koralek. (2010). “Enhancing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Recertification: SNAP Modernization Efforts.” Nutrition am Report Series. Assistance Progr Hunger in America 2014 National Report 66

82 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 3. related services - Outreach approach among agencies offering SNAP Figure 3 - 34% All clients receive SNAP-related services on intake Only clients who express interest receive SNAP-related services 66% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q10A. Weighted nonreporting agencies 853; total weighted N = 18,198. Of course, not all agencies provide SNAP - related services, as these services require a significant investment of agency resources (Figure 3 - 4). Those who do not offer the services most commonly cite a more narrow mission as their reason; 78.6 percent of agencies not providing services report that SNAP is not a part of what their agency does. Of those reporting other impediments, related issues prevent t staff them from providing SNAP services, 65.3 percent of agencies say tha - lly, 43.4 percent identif y lack of while 61.0 percent lack physical space or electronic equipment. Fina 52 time as a reason. 52 Although 60.3 percent of agencies reported not providing SNAP - related services, agencies that do not provide such services directly may refer clients for assistance from agencies that do provide these services. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 67

83 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 4. related services, among agencies reporting not - Figure 3 - Reasons for not offering SNAP offering them 78.6% 65.2% 61.0% 43.4% 21.5% Other reason SNAP is not part of Lacking physical Not enough time Staff-related issues space or equipment what this agency does Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q10C. Weighted nonreporting agencies 155; to tal weighted N = 27,295. Staff related issues include not enough staff, lack of staff awareness of SNAP, staff Agencies were asked to mark all reasons that apply. - needing more training on SNAP; lacking physical space or equipment includes not enough space for private counseling, and not having the right electronic equipment. In addition to help with SNAP, agencies may provide information or aid related to other 5). These services related to government programs other than - government programs (Figure 3 SNAP are less common, but are an important part of the mission of several agencies. After SNAP, Medicaid - related services are the most common, with 29.7 percent of agencies reporting providing 5.5 percent of agencies provide some sort of assistance with the federal health care program. Next, 2 aid with WIC, a federal program which provides pregnant and postpartum women and young children ages 0 - 5 with nutrition education and vouchers to purchase healthy foods. Some agencies program, (23.1 percent) also provide help with t he Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) more commonly known as welfare, while 22.5 percent offer help with housing, such as Section 8 vouchers and other subsidies. Overall, 40.0 percent of agencies assistance with report providing government pr ograms other than SNAP, with 25.0 percent of all agencies reporting that they 53 6). - provide assistance with three or more programs (Figure 3 53 Provision of assistance with these government programs may be underreported if the survey respondents are not familiar with the official names or operation of these programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 68

84 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Figure 3 er than SNAP Agencies providing assistance with specific government programs oth - 5. 29.7% 25.5% 23.1% 22.5% 22.2% 17.5% TANF SSI Medicaid Housing EITC WIC in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q12. Data Source: Hunger . Agencies were asked to mark all programs for which they provide services Weighted nonreporting agencies 203; total weighted N = 46,117. Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC – – SSI Supplemental Security Income Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. TANF – and Children. , – WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants Hunger in America 2014 National Report 69

85 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Figure 3 Agencies providing assistance with government programs other than SNAP 6. - Agencies that provide Agencies that do not assistance with provide assistance with government programs government programs other than SNAP other than SNAP 40% 60% One program 9% Two programs 6% Three or more programs 25% , Q12. Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey - SNAP programs include WIC, TANF, EITC, housing, SSI, and Medicaid. Non Weighted nonreporting agencies 203; total weighted N = 46,117. Finally, several agencies also work directly with other federal programs, for example by distributing USDA commodities or operating a child nutrition program. USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service operates two commodity programs frequently utilized by hunger - relief agencies, the Commodity TEFAP). In Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and The Emergency Food Assistance Program ( the Feeding America network, 17.7 percent of agencies distribute commodities through the CSFP, which provides a monthly box of nutritious foods. At the time of this study, most (over 97.0 percent) CSFP participants were seniors age 60 and older living in or near poverty; the program also 54 5.7 Also, 3 served a small number of low - income women, infants, and children up to age six. percent of agencies report distributing commodities through TEFAP, which provides commodities income or homeless individuals through emergency food programs such as pantries, for low - kitchens, or shelters. Finally, 0.9 percent of responding agencies report participating in the Food 54 Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 11 3 - 79) know n as the Since the time of the study CSFP has been changed through http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CSFP_Farm_Bill_ , to serve only seniors. See Farm Bill . Implementation_Memo.pdf Hunger in America 2014 National Report 70

86 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network FDPIR ) Distribution Program on Indian Reservations ( es , providing food to Native American famili on reservations or other designated areas. Federal child nutrition programs provide reimbursements for meals served to qualifying individuals rather than directly supplying food for distribution. Feeding America agencies administer two such CACFP, and 9.5 percent provide a a Summer Food programs: 5 .6 percent of agencies provide Service Program (SFSP). CACFP provides nutritious meals and snacks to low - income children in a afterschool , variety of settings: daycare centers and child care homes , and emergency shelters enrichment programs. CACFP also serves some low - income seniors and disabled adults in adult daycare. SFSP provides meals and snacks to low income children during the summer when school is - not in session. As part of providing information about available services, many agencies go further by providing information in multiple languages in an effort to reach the local communities. In particular, many agencies have worked to identify and overcome barriers to service receipt in their areas, most - only in the form of language difficulties (Figure 3 comm ). Many agencies serve clients who do not 7 speak English or may speak English as a second language (see for more information on Chapter 4 client languages ). Previous research has identified lack of Englis h competency as an important factor 55 Among all limiting enrollment in programs like SNAP or other food supports. agencies, 40.3 percent report that they help overcome such barriers by providing information about services in more than one language. Use of m ultiple languages is particularly common among governmental agencies (58.1 percent) and CAPs (54.5 percent), and slightly less common among other nonprofit - or private organizations (48.6 percent) and faith based agencies (35.0 percent). 55 Gandhi Raj Bhattarai, P atricia A. Duffy, and Jennie Raymond. (2006). “Use of Food Pantries and Food Stamps in Low - Income Households in the United States.” Journal of Consumer Affairs , 39(2): 276 - 298; and Susan J. Algert, M ichael Reibel, and Marian J. Renvall. (2006). “Barriers t o Participation in the Food Stamp Program Among Food Pantry 807 : 96(5) ” American Journal of Public Health, 809. - Clients in Los Angeles . Hunger in America 2014 National Report 71

87 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network . Figure 3 es providing information about services in more than one language, by type Agenci 7 - of agency 58.1% 54.5% 48.6% 42.4% 40.3% 35.0% Governmental Faith based or Community All agencies Other Some other located in a Action Program agency nonprofit or (CAP) religious private institution organization Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q18. Weighted nonreporting agencies 438; total weighted N = 46,117. related to other aid programs, showing both the In summary, agencies provide a range of services important role that agencies take on in communities and the depth of need of agency clients. This need involves not only poverty and hunger but also concrete barriers to obtaining help, such as iculties. language diff Agency Funding 3.3.2 All of these food, food - related, and non - food programs operated by agencies require significant resources. Agencies in the Feeding America network receive funding from a number of sources, including local, state, and federa l governments; individual contributions; corporate support; foundation support; donations from religious institutions ; and other sources ; client service fees 56 (Table 3 Results show 0 ). On the survey, agencies were asked to detail their sources of support. 2 - that most agencies rely on a diversified stream of funding sources. Least common as a funding 56 These sources of support are those that are direct and visible to the agencies, which may differ from sources of suppo rt from the food bank. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 7 2

88 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 57 client service fees; are 83.0 percent of reporting agencies receive no funding from this source source. Similarly, 58.3 percent of agencies receive no government funding, 62.5 percent receive no corporate support, 62.4 percent receive no foundation support, and 40.7 percent receive no funding from religious institutions. - 2 0 . Agencies reporting level of funding, by source of funds Table 3 Level of agency funding from the sources More than half Half of total No Total funding funding funding or less Source of of total funding 83.0% 14.2% 2.8% 100% Client service fees Corporate support 62.5% 35.9% 1.6% 100% Foundation support 62.4% 34.8% 2.8% 100% 58.3% 23.7% 18.0% 100% Government funding 57.6% 14.7% Individual contributions 100% 27.7% 43.7% 40.7% Religious institutions 15.7% 100% 4.7% Other 68.1% 27.2% 100% 657 Weighted nonreporting agencies 46,117 All agencies weighted N Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q15. Data Source: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which vey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to sur include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc ount for survey nonresponse from nonparticipating fo od banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents ecause of eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b valid skips. contributions are the most common source of support; 27.7 percent of In contrast, individual half of their funding from these contributions. Second is government agencies receive more than of their funding from this half funding, with 18.0 percent of agencies receiving more than source. Religious institutions are third, with 15.7 percent of agencies receiving more than of their half funding from religious organizations. In general, there is a wide variety of different funding combinations, highlighting the different circumstances in which agencies seek and find support. These funding sources have multiple implications for agencies. First, economic conditions and other circumstances can have a significant impact on the ability of agencies to provide food and services. Although agencies have chosen to maintain their programs’ level of food distribution, (see Section 3.2.6) a substanti al number of agencies report having to make reductions in other areas 1 2 - . Staffing reductions such as hours of operation and staffing within the last 12 months (Table 3 ) 57 Agencies in the Feeding America network are not permitted to charge clients for food. Some agencies, however, may services. have fees related to other services provided to clients, such as trainings, social activities, or professional Hunger in America 2014 National Report 73

89 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 1.0 percent of agencies report are particularly notable since only 5 having paid staff (see Section 3.2.1), and those that do have relatively few full time equivalent staff. CAPs appear to s have cut hours of operation, 20.1 percent have laid have been the hardest hit: 16.6 percent of CAP off staff, and 14.9 percent have limited their service area. Other types of agencies have also faced reductions. For example, 12.3 percent of faith - based institutions have cut hours of operations p ercent have laid off staff and 11.1 percent have limited the service area), while 16.9 percent of (4.2 other nonprofits or private organizations have laid off staff. No type of agency was immune to reductions. Agencies reporting select reductions d 2 1 . Table 3 - uring the past 12 months Type of reduction Lay off Limit service Cut hours of operation Type of agency staff area Community Action Program (CAP) 16.6% 20.1% 14.9% 11.1% 12.3% Faith based or located in a religious institution 4.2% 10.0% Governmental agency 10.4% 13.5% 10.7% Some other nonprofit or private organization 11.6% 16.9% 10.3% 9.1% Other 9.3% All agencies 12.1% 8.7% 11.0% 586 700 Weighted nonreporting agencies 542 46,117 46,117 All agencies weighted N 46,117 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q16. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. The survey allowed respondents to mark all that apply, thus percentages do not sum to 100%. NOTE: culated from valid responses which All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are cal exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs estimates are weighted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All s survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total w eighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. These reductions are attributed to several different circumstances across different types of agencies 2 em ). Among agencies reporting reductions, (Table 3 - 2 th 61.3 to 74.3 percent of agencies attribute ercent of agencies also report needing to to less money or food available. Between 29.8 and 43.5 p to 9 serve more clients as a reason for making reductions. Only 18. a 23.6 percent of agencies cite change in what the agency does as resulting in the reduc 3.6 percent of agencies tions. Overall, 2 making at least one type of reduction. report Hunger in America 2014 National Report 74

90 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network Table 3 - 2 2 . Agencies reporting select reasons for making reductions, among agencies that reported reductions during the past 12 months Type of reason Need to serve more Less money or clients or give out Change in what Type of agency food available more food the agency does 74.0% 38.6% 23.6% Community Action Program (CAP) Faith based or located in a religious institution 74.3% 19.9% 43.5% Governmental agency 63.7% 31.8% 23.2% 18.9% Some other nonprofit or private organization 73.3% 29.8% 61.3% Other 20.2% 32.0% 73.3% 38.2% 19.9% All agencies 242 525 623 Weighted nonreporting agencies 10,884 10,884 10,884 All agencies weighted N 2014 Agency Survey, Q16A. Data Source: Hunger in America Total weighted N differs across items because valid skips are not included. The survey allowed respondents to mark all that apply, thus percentages do not sum to 100%. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percen tages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or programs agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to account for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondent s eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data b ut excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Among agencies that have needed to make reductions in the past 12 months, there is some concern on their part about their ability to continue to provide services (Fig 8 ). Over half of agencies ure 3 - that made reductions report being “somewhat” or “very worried” about being able to continue to provide services. Level of worry is highest among CAPs (where 52.5 percent are somewhat worried rcent are very worried and 25.3 pe s also the group with the highest level of service ), and it i - reductions. F the least concern, but even here, 21.4 percent are very based institutions express aith worried and 43.5 percent are somewhat worried. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 75

91 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network 8 - ety associated with continuing to provide services, Agencies reporting level of anxi . Figure 3 among agencies that reported reductions during the past 12 months 22.20% 30.50% 31.30% 33.20% 35.10% 35.80% 52.50% 46.30% 44.90% 39.80% 50.90% 43.50% 25.30% 24.30% 22.40% 21.90% 21.40% 18.60% Governmental Some other All agencies Community Other Faith based or nonprofit or Action Program (N = 7515) (N = 221) located in a agency (CAP) private (N = 212) religious organization institution (N = 363) (N = 2444) (N = 4275) not worried somewhat worried very worried Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q16B. Weighted nonreporting agencies 120; total weighted N = 10,884. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. ). Among 2 3 When these worries are broken down more specifically, several themes emerge (Table 3 - being somewhat or very worried about being able to th reductions that also report those agencies wi continue to provide services, 5 that not having enough money is a cent of agencies report 5.7 per major threat to continuing to provide services. It is, in fact, the most common “major threat” identified. Not having enough food supplies is another problem, identified by 27.8 percent of agencies as a major threat. Less pressing is leadership and board support, and community needs and support. Only 3.4 percent of agencies say that lack of community need is a major threat, while omewhat of a threat or a major percent say it is no threat at all. Other problems identified as s 89.1 threat by at leas t a quarter of agencies include not enough volunteers, not enough money for transportation or other transportation problems, and building or location problems. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 76

92 3 Describing the Feeding America National Network associated with continuing to provide services, - . Agencies reporting challenges 3 2 Table 3 among agencies that reported reductions during the past 12 months Level of threat Major Somewhat of Minor Not at all Type of threat a threat Total threat threat a threat Not enough money 55.7% 33.1% 8.8% 2.3% 100% Not enough food supplies 36.9% 22.3% 27.8% 13.1% 100% Not enough paid staff or personnel 17.1% 22.2% 19.5% 41.1% 100% 27.2% Not enough volunteers 14.6% 23.5% 34.7% 100% 21.7% 22.3% 17.9% 100% 38.1% Not enough money for transportation or no good vehicle to pick up products at the food bank 16.7% Building or location problems 22.7% 11.0% 49.6% 100% Not enough leadership/board support 3.9% 10.2% 19.0% 66.9% 100% 28.8% Not enough community support 6.1% 18.3% 46.8% 100% 2.4% 3.4% 100% 89.1% 5.0% Community doesn't need this program 19 Weighted nonreporting agencies 7,223 All agencies weighted N Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Agency Survey, Q16C. slightly Total weighted N differs across items. rounding. Numbers may not sum due to NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which rograms exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting agencies or p ount for include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating agencies or their programs. All estimates are weighted to acc respondents survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks and agencies. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of ecause of eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables b valid skips. the Overall, these concerns and the number of reductions in service faced by agencies highlight challenging position in which many organizations find themselves. As many have seen the volume of clients seeking food and services increase, the availability of funding and resources has in many cases ension in greater detail as we report on the complex decreased. In the next sections, we discuss this t needs of Feeding America clients and their households, as reported on the HIA 2014 Client Survey. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 77

93 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and 4 Their Households Key Findings The Feeding America network provides food assistance to an estimated 46.5 million  clients in 15.5 million households annually. Many of these clients seek services unique repeatedly throughout the year.  Clients and their households are diverse, including many different racial and ethnic groups and education levels, and ranging in age from infan ts to seniors. Thirty - nine percent of households contain at least one child, and 33 percent contain at least one senior.  The Feeding America network serves client households with military service members. Twenty percent of households include at least one member who has ever served in the U.S. military.  The majority (93 percent) of cli ent households reside in nontemporary housing, such as houses or apartments. One in 15 households lives in temporary housing, such as a shelter, mission, or on the street. Many respondents have experienced recent housing lived in two or more places in the past year, and 16 transitions, with 27 percent having percent having experienced foreclosure or eviction in the past five years.  In 23 percent of households, the person employed the most in the past 12 months is currently unemployed. In an additional 42 pe rcent of households, the most employed person of the past 12 months is now out of the workforce and not looking for work, often due to age, poor health, or disability. Among households with employment in the past 12 months, more than half (57 percent) are employed only part - time.  Many households report health concerns. In 33 percent of households, a member has been diagnosed with diabetes, and in 58 percent of households a member has high blood pressure. In 23 percent of households, no one has health insura nce coverage, and 60 percent of households have unpaid medical bills. two percent of client  - Most households are subsisting on very little income. Seventy households fall at or below 100 percent of the poverty level. In this chapter we present background in formation on Feeding America clients and their households through an exploration of the ir characteristics and circumstances. We illuminate both the diversity of clients’ households, and the challenges and barriers they face to ensuring they have sufficient food to We begin by presenting estimates of the meet their needs and those of their household members. number of clients using the Feeding America network in a typical week, month, and year. We Hunger in America 2014 National Report 78

94 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households times clients are reached through r of estimate both duplicated counts, representing the total numbe food distributions in a given period of time, and unduplicated counts, representing the total number of unique individuals served in that period. We then discuss demographic characteristics of the ) individuals served annually. Next we move to characteristics of the unduplicated (unique households of Feeding America clients, to describe the home circumstances of all clients who use ceive the Feeding America network, regardless of whether others who share the household also re Feeding America services. We address , household demographics and housing characteristics employment, potential barriers to employment, and student status of adult household members. We s, and conclude with an explore health status and medical expenses faced by the household examination of income and poverty. These results the diversity of the population that demonstrate the Feeding America network serves, as well as differences between those who participate in the two main types of food programs, meal As mentioned in Section 2.1.3, results are presented and grocery. for meal and grocery programs separately because we expect different patterns may emerge between clients of meal programs and clients of grocery programs. rom the Client Survey. The initial sections of this chapter Data from this chapter are drawn f describe Feeding America clients, and those data are weighted to provide national estimates of the number of clients who receive services through the Feeding America network weekly, monthly, and a nnually. Individual client demographic characteristics are weighted based on the number of unduplicated clients served in a year, and are shown separately for clients of meal programs, grocery programs, and all food programs, both meal and grocery. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent data in this chapter are weighted to provide national estimates of clients’ households. The weighted household estimates are based on the number of unduplicated households, in a typical month, in which someone from the hous ehold is served by a Feeding America food program. The percentages presented in the tables are percentages of client esults are shown for As with the individual client data, r households of meal client households. ecause the program s, grocery programs , and all foo d pr ograms, both meal and grocery . B - unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs removes double counting of clients served by both types of programs , m eal program numbers and grocery program do not s um to all food program numbers. numbers in tables We present the data for all households that include at least one Feeding America client and, as , at least one child appropriate, for additional household compositions of interest: households with at least on households with , and at least one child and one senior , households with e senior Hunger in America 2014 National Report 79

95 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households households with no children or seniors. Children are defined as those under 18 years old, and seniors are defined as those 60 years old and older. We explore statistically significant differ ences between meal and grocery client households where applicable to illuminate the ways in which clients who are reached through these types of food programs may differ in their backgrounds and needs. Similarly, we explore statistically significant ences between the household compositions of interest to highlight the ways in which different differ types of households, and particularly those containing children or seniors, have different needs and confidence intervals for data in the resources. Appendix C of this report contains the 90 percent report tables. Where statistically significant differences are reported between subgroups of clients or client households, the determination of statistical significance is based on the 90 percent confidence intervals. W here possible, we also present information in the text from relevant national surveys findings in sponsored by the federal government, to place the Hunger in America 2014 (HIA 2014) context. 4 .1 Estimating Clients Served by Feeding America Estimating the duplicated and unduplicated counts of clients served by Feeding America is an : important way of quantifying the reach of the Feeding America network are estimates of the number of times clients are reached through Duplicated counts  Feeding America networ k food distributions during a given time period. These s estimates count client each time they receive food: for meal programs, that is each time an individual receives a meal and for grocery programs, each time an individual and his grocery program s receive groceries. The counts include each household member or her member of a household for each grocery distribution. For example, a client visiting a grocery program twice a month, picking up food for household of his or her five 0 duplicated clients for the month. Similarly, if the same people, would be counted as 1 client instead visited a meal program four times in one month, he or she would be counted each time, resulting in four duplicated clients. s estimate are clients served by the unique  Unduplicated counts of the total number of Feeding America network during a week, month, or year. Clients who report returning repeatedly for service are counted only once in this statistic, providing an estimate of the . number of unique individuals helped by the network Because grocery programs distribute food to an entire household, but meal programs distribute food to each person present to consume a meal or snack, the unit in which clients may be conceptualized Hunger in America 2014 National Report 80

96 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households differs. Entire households are clients for grocery progr ams, whereas individuals are receiving a meal clients for meal programs. Combining data on household clients for grocery programs and individual clients for meal programs can therefore be confusing. To avoid potential misunderstanding of the client count e stimates, we present the information on duplicated and unduplicated clients in two ways: by individuals served and by households served. served, we multiply the number of client households individuals When calculating estimates of 58 receiving groceries by t he number of people in each household, expanding the estimate of grocery clients to represent the number of individuals who benefit from the groceries. We leave meal clients the — the same unit at the individual level. This allows meal and grocery clients to be described in number of individuals receiving food. served, we adjust the estimate of individual meal households When calculating estimates of client clients to account for individuals from the same household who receive meal services, ultimately ving at an estimate of the number of households in which at least one person is served by a arri Feeding America meal program. We leave grocery clients at the household level. This allows both er of households receiving the numb – meal and grocery clients to be described in the same unit food. we describe the statistical procedures used in estimating client counts. In the following sections More detailed information on the estimation procedures appears in the Technical Volume. 4 .1.1 Method for Computing Client Count Estimates Duplicated Client Count Estimates the number of are clients reached through food Duplicated client count estimates — times — are computed by combining data from all stages of sampling distributions in a given period of time 2 fo (see Figure 2 - r details ) with a series of adjustments to account for the timing of data collection. These adjustments include calculations that take into consideration whether the data collection occurred at an ebb or flow in the annual cycle of services available, and correct for that. As described is then applied to allow all the data to , an additional adjustment in the preceding section 58 . Respondents were asked to report their household size in Question 1 of the Client Survey Hunger in America 2014 National Report 81

97 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households be transformed to either individual or household units. This process is expanded upon in the following paragraphs. first base weights were estimates initial A base weight is a multiplier . computed For the HIA 2014 at each of the stages of that , in this case, account s the different likelihoods of being selected for sampling (see Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2, for details of the stages of sam pling). At each stage, a sample was drawn from the population, so the effect of the corresponding weights at each stage is to account for the members of the population that were not selected in the sample. When calculating 59 , both sampling of the and sampling of clients place and time of the program visit itself, the weights during the program visit . The base weights were also adjusted to account for were accounted for corresponds nonresponse at each stage of sampling. The final base weight for each client respondent to the number of food distributions the particular respondent represents. Thus, the sum of these times all clients are reached through food distributions weights is an estimate of the total number of at programs in the Feeding America network d uring the HIA 2014 data collection period. These weights were then adjusted further, using the following factors:  A time adjustment factor to convert the data from the data collection period to the appropriate reference period (week, month, or year). , asonal adjustment factor which was the ratio of the average number of days the  A se program was open in a month to the number of days the program was open in the month during which the program visit occurred, to account for whether the data s an ebb or flow in seasonal service collection month wa .  The number of household members for grocery clients, to convert number of grocery client households into individuals to allow for estimates of duplicated individuals or served; clients from the same household who receive to account for individual The adjustment  meal services, to convert the number of meal client individuals into households to allow for estimates of duplicated households served. e total number of either The sum of these adjusted weights is the duplicated count, an estimate of th individual or household food distributions at programs in the Feeding America network during a week, month, or year. 59 If a program Sampling of the place and time of the visit included sampling of the agency, program, and day/time. included multiple sites or vehicles ope rating during the sampled day/time, sampling at this stage also included sampling a site or vehicle at which to conduct data collection. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 82

98 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households Unduplicated Client Count Estimates Unduplicated client count estimates use the duplicated client count estimates described in the last as their basis. For weekly and monthly estimates, two additional adjustment factors were section applied: An  ber of times the client received unduplication factor that accounts for the num services from the same type of program (meal or grocery) in the week/month to remove repeated uses. A compositing or overlap factor used only when computing estimates for all program  ounting of clients served by both meal and c - types together that removes the double grocery programs during the specified timeframe. The sum of these adjusted weights is the weekly or monthly unduplicated client count, an estimate programs in the Feeding America of the total number of either individuals or households served by network during a week or month. Because it is difficult for people to report accurately on intermittent activities taking place during the a different approach in estimating annual unduplicated c lient counts previous 12 months, we used that paralleled that used in the Hunger in America 2010 (HIA 2010) report. A “newcomer rate” was estimated separately for meal and grocery programs. The newcomer rate was defined as the proportion of clients who indicated on the survey that th ey were receiving services from that type of program (meal or grocery) for the first time in the past 12 months. This newcomer rate factor was applied to the weight used to compute the monthly unduplicated client count estimates, to estimate the unduplicat ed number of monthly clients who are newcomers. The annual unduplicated client count estimate was then obtained by summing:  One month’s undu plicated client count; plus 11 times the estimated unduplicated number of monthly clients who are newcomers.  alculation takes a month of unduplicated clients and adds the estimated number of new clients This c who would receive services each month through the rest of the year, resulting in an estimate of the total number of unique (unduplicated) clients in a year. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 83

99 4 Their Households Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and 4 .2 Estimates of Clients in the Feeding America Network .1 In this section we present the duplicated and unduplicated client count estimates for the Feeding America network (Table 4 - 1). The table includes individual clients and households served for all 60 progra for a typical week, month, and the ms and individual clients for meal and grocery programs, full year. Because the numbers of clients served are estimates based on a sample, they have an number of ncludes sampling error. Each of the se estimates of the associated margin of error that i The 90 percent confidence interval is the . margin of error displayed underneath clients has a estimate plus or minus the margin of error. Although we believe the client count estimates best represent the data, the margins of e rror and confidence intervals are the range of numbers in which we can say, with 90 percent confidence, t hat the true client counts fall. Using the duplicated client count estimation techniques described , we estimate that previously food clients in America network are reached through the Feeding distributions 7.5 million times in a in a typical month, and 389.2 million annually. Looking at the typical week, 32.4 million times times number of households in which at least one member is served by Feeding America, we duplicated 2.9 million households are reached through food distributions find that in a typical week, times million times in a typical month, and 151. 6 million times annually. 12.6 Gr ocery programs distribute food to duplicated clients 6.0 million times in a typical week, annually. Meal programs, which are 26.3 million times in a typical month, and 315.3 million times times in a 1.4 million clients duplicated much less numerous within the network, distribute food to month, and 73.9 million week, 6.2 million times in a typical typical times annually. Because the clients are se numbers are duplicated numbers, they represent the number of times reached through food distribution , not the un ique number of individuals or households served. Using the unduplicated client count techniques we describe , we estimate the number of previously d unique individuals served by Feeding America across all food program types to be 5.4 million lion monthly, and 46.5 million annually. Looking at unique households served, we weekly, 17.1 mil estimate the numbers at 1.8 million households weekly, 5.8 million households monthly, and 15.5 million households annually. 60 Because the count of all program clients removes double counting of clients who reported using both meal and programs, the counts for meal and grocery do not sum to the total number of clients for all programs. grocery Hunger in America 2014 National Report 84

100 Hunger in America 2014 4 - Estimates of the number of clients served by program type Table 1. Monthly Annually Weekly Duplicated Unduplicated Unduplicated Duplicated Duplicated Unduplicated counts counts counts counts counts counts Total number of individual clients A ll programs 000 46,516, 7,46 5 , 000 000 5,356, 000 389,242, 32,43 7 , 000 000 , 17,06 9 ±724,000 ±245,000 ±318,000 ±16,589,000 Margin of error ±1,998,000 ±1,382,000 Total number of individual clients by meal and grocery programs National Report Meal programs 1,418,000 656,000 6,162,000 1,772,000 73,938,000 3,298,000 ±178,000 Margin of error ±58,000 ±536,000 ±123,000 ±6,432,000 ±334,000 6,047,000 5,084,000 26,275,000 16,621,000 315,304,000 45,938,000 Grocery programs ±299,000 ±15,586,000 ±726,000 ±2,015,000 ±1,299,000 ±249,000 Margin of error Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households a programs Subtypes of 5,895,000 4,890,000 25,615,000 15,900,000 307,376,000 43,950,000 Pantries 196,000 871,000 45,425,000 3,785,000 382,000 Kitchens 711,000 Shelters 155,000 34,000 672,000 88,000 8,062,000 164,000 1,805,000 Senior 341,000 220,000 1,483,000 680,000 17,799,000 847,000 1,457,000 2,339,000 335,000 17,487,000 Mobile 284,000 Total number of client households 2,908,000 1,834,000 12,637,000 5,760,000 151,645,000 All programs 15,498,000 ±569,000 Margin of error ±131,000 ±71,000 ±208,000 ±6,832,000 ±567,000 a mutually Confidence intervals for program subtypes can be found in they exclusive; thus, they do not sum to the total client counts. Subtypes of programs are not exhaustive nor are Appendix C. are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. All estimates NOTE: . banks, agencies, programs, and clients 4 85

101 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households We also present the client counts broken down to estimate service within some program subtypes of — pantries, kitchens, and shelters as in HIA 2010, programs for seniors, and mobile interest 61 programs (Table 4 - 1). As in HIA 2010, the unduplicated annual count of clients utilizing grocery significantly outnumbers that of clients utilizing meal programs programs (45.9 million) statistically ted annual count of clients (3.3 million). New to this year’s study, we also analyzed the unduplica utilizing senior programs (1.8 million) and mobile programs (2.3 million). The wide use of senior , particularly those who may be uantity of need among seniors programs demonstrates the high q subsisting on a fixed income. The lar ge constituency of mobile pantry clients represents an expanding initiative within the Feeding America network to reach people in need who may have and 1, - difficulty receiving assistance through brick - - 4 mortar food programs. While looking at Table it is im portant to note that the client counts at program subtypes are not exhaustive (there are more are they a single mutually exclusive ( program subtypes than the five included in the table), nor mobile pantry program may be included both under pantries and und er mobile programs, for ). example Selected Demographic Characteristics of Feeding America Clients .1.3 4 the demographic characteristics of all unduplicated (unique) individuals In this section we examine served directly by Feeding America annually, inclu ding age, race/ethnicity, and education level and 4 student status of adult clients (Table 2). - In Section 4.2 we will present demographic characteristics of the house holds of Feeding America clients, looking instead at client households served in a . Those data describe the circumstances of unduplicated clients served in a typical month household typical month, regardless of whether other household members themselves are also clients, to provide context for the life circumstances of clients in h. a typical mont is notable in several ways. Across all food The age breakdown of individual clients served annually 26.0 percent of clients. including - 49 years, programs the most common listed age range is 30 Combining relevant categories, however, a full 28.5 percent of clients are children under age 18. This figure, encompassing 12 million children, is one we know to be an underestimate as programs that only serve children were exclu ded from eligibility for the Client Survey, and children at multiage meal programs were not eligible to be sampled for the survey and are thus not represented. The 61 frame design of HIA 2014, the study was not designed to support these program subtype - Because of the dual estimates reliably, and therefore they should be interpreted cautiously. Confidence intervals for these estimates appear in Appendix C. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 86

102 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 4 - Selected demographic characteristics of Feeding America clients Table 2. of program Type All food programs Meal Grocery aracteristics Demographic Percentage Count Percentage Count ch Percentage Count Age a years 5 -- -- 0 3.5M 8.5% 3.5M 8.2% - a 17 years -- -- 8.5M 20.9% 8.5M 20.3% 6 - - 29 years 0.4M 15.0% 5.8M 14.2% 6.0M 14.3% 18 - years 1.1M 38.6% 10.4M 25.5% 10.9M 26.0% 30 49 - 59 years 0.8M 26.0% 5.9M 14.4% 6.1M 14.6% 50 - 64 years 0.2M 7.4% 2.2M 5.4% 2.3M 5.4% 60 or older 0.4M 13.1% 65 4.6M 11.2% 4.7M 11.2% years Total 2.9M 100% 40.8M 100% 42.0M 100% Weighted clients 0.4M 4.4M 4.5M nonreporting 46.5M 45.2M Total weighted N 3.3M Race/ethnicity race or ethnicity 3.1M 95.0% 39.7M 95.2% 40.9M 95.2% Single or Alaska Native 0.1M 2.3% 1.0M 2.2% 1.0M American 2.2% Indian Asian 0.0M 1.1% 0.6M 1.4% 0.6M 1.4% Black or African American 1.0M 30.2% 11.6M 26.0% 12.0M 26.1% Hispanic, 0.3M 10.4% 8.9M Latino 20.0% 9.0M 19.7% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0M 0.3% 0.2M 0.5% 0.2M 0.5% 43.2% White 49.5% 19.3M 1.6M 19.9M 43.4% Some race 0.0M 1.3% 0.9M 2.1% 0.9M 2.0% other 2.1M 5.0% 4.7% 2.2M 4.7% Multiple races or ethnicities 0.2M Total 100% 44.6M 100% 45.9M 100% 3.2M 0.6M clients 0.1M 0.6M Weighted nonreporting weighted N 3.3M 45.2M 46.5M Total of adult clients level Education than high school (HS) 0.6M 18.7% 8.0M 26.5% 8.2M 26.1% Less 1.1M diploma 32.8% 11.1M 36.6% 11.5M 36.4% HS 14.7% General diploma or GED 0.5M equivalency 2.9M 9.6% 3.1M 10.0% License, certificate, or degree beyond HS 0.2M 7.2% 2.1M 7.1% 2.2M 7.1% 19.0% Some college or 2 - year college degree 0.6M 4.4M 14.7% 4.7M 14.8% 4 - year college degree or higher 0.2M 7.7% 1.7M 5.5% 1.8M 5.7% 100% 31.6M 100% Total 3.2M 100% 30.2M Weighted clients 0.1M 2.1M 2.2M nonreporting 3.3M Total 32.4M 33.7M weighted N Student status of adult clients Full - time student 0.1M 4.0% 2.0M 6.9% 2.1M 6.7% 1.0M Part student 0.1M 4.0% time 3.5% 1.1M 3.5% - Not a student 3.0M 92.0% 26.6M 89.7% 27.8M 89.8% 3.2M Total 100% 29.7M 100% 31.0M 100% Weighted clients 0.1M 2.7M 2.7M nonreporting Total weighted N 3.3M 32.4M 33.7M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, and Q6a. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Data are weighted to represent annual unduplicated numbers of clients. License, certificate, or degree beyond HS includes business, trade, or technical licenses. a Child clients are underestimated due to the exclusion of programs from the Client Survey tha t serve only children. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total we ighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal numbers because and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program program numbers removes double - the weight for all counting of clients served by both food programs the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 87

103 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households does account for grocery pr ogram househo ld members under the age estimated 12 million children the actual number of children served by the Feeding America network , however, of 18; is likely much greater. Seniors are an important but slightly less prevalent group, with 5.4 percent of all clients between 60 - 64 yea rs old, and 11.2 percent of all clients 65 years old or older. Clients are racially and ethnically diverse, with 43.4 percent identifying themselves as White, 26.1 percent as Black or African American, 19.7 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 6.1 percent as other single race, and 4.7 percent as multirace or multiethnic an . The most common level of educational attainment among adult clients is a high school degree or general equivalency diploma (GED), with 46.4 percent of all adult clients reporting either a high school diploma or GED. More than a quarter (26.1 percent) of ad ult clients have not complete d high school. In the higher ranges of educational attainment, 14.8 percent of adult clients have - or a two completed some college year - completed a four have , and 5.7 percent year college degree Ten percent of adult clients are seeking to increase their education. college degree or higher level of time and 3.5 percent in school part - time. levels of education, with 6.7 percent in school full - 4 .1.4 Interpreting Changes in Client Estimates from 2010 to 2014 he Feeding America network has Based solely on the und uplicated client counts, it appears that t seen an increase over the past four years in the number of clients served annually. Estimates from the HIA 2010 study placed the annual unduplicated client count at that time at 37 mi llion is likely the individuals. This apparent growth in unduplicated clients served by the network and interpretation in the scope s change of the HIA study between 2010 and 2014, combination of Some incre ase in the number of annual and actual growth in the network during that time. unduplicated clients is expected due to inclusion of additional programs not previously represented in the data. HIA 2014 differs substantially in design from HIA 2010. A As outlined in Section 2.6.7, however, number of improve ments were made, including implementing a more representative program classification system (meal/grocery), employing digital data collection, increasing the number of nd most Client Survey languages, conducting the Agency Survey in advance of the Client Survey, a importantly, including additional program types in the study. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 88

104 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households Over the past four years the nature and structure of food programs in the Feeding America network are being have grown more diverse. As more is learned about clients, new programmatic strategies implemented to ensure that clients can access food in the manner most convenient to their For this reason, and circumstance. Improvements to HIA 2014 have tried to capture this evolution. the others described here, we caution against making any d irect comparisons between the two studies. 4. 2 Feeding America Clients Come from a Diverse Set of Households provides context n overview of the generational composition of the clients’ household members A , focusing specif ically on whether the households contain children for the remainder of this chapter 62 under age 18 or seniors age 60 or over. Across all food programs, both meal and grocery, 38.6 percent of client households include at least one child, 33.1 percent of households include at at least one child and at least one senior , and least one senior, 6.4 percent of households contain 2013 rs (Table 4 - 3 ). Data from the 34.8 percent of households contain neither children nor senio estimate that nationally only 32 percent of U.S. households Current Population Survey (CPS) contain a child under age 18, suggesting that households with children may be disproportionately 63 ca network. represented in the Feeding Ameri 64 Looking at specific types of food programs, we see that the overall pattern described for all food both holds true for grocery programs, with households with programs at least one child (40.7 percent) and households with at least one senior (33.7 percent) being strongly represented. A different pattern emerges, however, for meal programs, as only 9.9 percent of clients at meal programs are from households with at least one child , 25.6 percent are from households with at least 65.4 percent are from households containing neither children nor seniors. one senior , and Households with at least one child, with or without a senior also present in the home, are statistically significantly more likely to use grocery programs as compared to meal program (using the s percent confidence intervals as the standard). Among meal programs that were eligible to be 90 62 The number of client households containing children is underestimated due to the exclusion from the Client Survey of programs serving only children. Section 2.6.2, for further details. See Chapter 2, 63 2013 Current Population Survey, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2013: Households (H table series) 2. Table H - 64 unt that forms the basis Meal clients and grocery clients do not sum to all food program clients, as the unduplicated co food program for all counting of clients served by both types of programs. - clients removes double Hunger in America 2014 National Report 89

105 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households visited for Client Survey data collection, particularly shelters and residential programs, many are only available to adults which may help explain this pattern. Because programs that only serve children underestimate of the households with children an were excluded from the Client Survey, this is likely that use programs. meal - 3 . Client household composition Table 4 program Type of All food Meal of programs household Grocery Composition Mutually exclusive household compositions Households with at least one child (no seniors) 9.1% 33.8% 32.1% Households at least one senior (no children) 24.8% 26.8% 26.7% with 0.8% at least one child and one senior with 6.9% 6.4% Households Households with no children or seniors 65.4% 32.5% 34.8% 100% All households 100% 100% Potentially overlapping household compositions 38.6% 40.7% 9.9% at least one child with Households Households at least one senior 25.6% 33.7% 33.1% with nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.5M 0.5M Weighted Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q3. or years 18 older. Children are 60 less than years of age; seniors are Household subtypes are not mutually exclusive, thus percentages do not sum to 100%. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which ng data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weight ed number across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary tables because of valid skips. Meal program percentages and grocery program percentages do not sum to all food pro gram - counting of clients served by percentages because the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all food programs removes double both types of programs. .1 2 Household Size of Clients 4. resources needed for the number of Household size is an important indicator of the level of individuals in need of food. This is particularly relevant for grocery programs since the distributed products may be intended for or used by the client's entire household. Table 4 4 presents the - percentage of households for each size category. Across all food programs, we found that percent of client households include only the client (i.e., they were single member households), 28.4 nly percent include two to three members, and 29.2 percent include four to six members. O 37.3 percent of the households include more than six members. The households that use grocery 5.1 programs follow this pattern, with most client households being multiperson households. In Hunger in America 2014 National Report 90

106 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households nt pattern, as the vast majority of contrast, meal programs follow a statistically significantly differe member households. meal client households (70.1 percent) are single - - . Client households by size 4 Table 4 of Type program All food s programs Meal ize Grocery Household households All member 70.1% 1 28.4% 24.6% 2 3 members 22.9% 38.6% 37.3% - - members 5.9% 4 31.3% 29.2% 6 1.0% 6 members More 5.5% 5.1% than Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.7M 0.7M 0.2M 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Total weighted N with at least one child Households member 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 2 3 members - 29.6% 30.5% 57.9% 4 - 6 members 38.2% 59.2% 58.4% More 6 members 3.8% 11.2% than 11.0% Households with at least one senior 1 member 62.5% 32.6% 34.5% 31.9% 2 3 members - 43.0% 42.2% members 6 19.4% 20.3% 4.7% 4 - 3.9% More 6 members 0.9% 4.1% than with at least one child and one senior Households member 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 - members 50.2% 3 24.7% 24.8% 2 - 6 60.9% members 40.1% 4 60.9% 9.7% More 6 members than 14.3% 14.3% Households with no children or seniors 1 member 80.4% 42.4% 48.0% 42.6% 2 - 3 members 16.4% 38.7% 13.5% 2.4% 4 11.9% members - 6 0.8% More 6 members than 1.5% 1.4% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q1 and Q3. Children are less than 18 years of age; seniors are 60 years or older. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude non response and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as s urvey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted n umber of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across numbers because tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program - counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all food programs removes double the weight for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 91

107 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 2 .2 Ages of Household Members 4. Previously we described the unweighted age ranges of survey respondents (Section 2.5.1) to describe the characteristics of survey participants, and we p rovided the distribution of ages of individual clients (Section 4.1.3) to characterize those whom Feeding America reaches through food distribution. But here we describe the age ranges of all the Feeding America client household from infants to se niors (Table 4 - 5 ) , to demonstrate the household characteristics of members, Feeding America clients . The age groups displayed are not mutually exclusive, as households can have members from multiple age groups. The most common age group across all programs is the 3 - 49 year old group, with 47.9 percent of households containing a me mber of that age range. Over 0 percent of households contain at least one child age five or younger 16 Almost a quarter . (23.4 percent) of client households contain a senior 65 years or olde r. Table 4 - 5 . Client households containing members in select age ranges program of Type All food household in groups , in years programs Meal Grocery Age All households 0 5 3.8% 17.4% 16.3% - - 17 7.5% 33.7% 31.9% 6 - 18 27.1% 27.9% 15.1% 29 30 37.7% 48.7% 47.9% 49 - - 59 34.8% 31.1% 31.2% 50 - 10.6% 64 60 12.3% 12.1% 15.8% 65 and over 23.9% 23.4% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.5M 0.5M 5.8M 5.4M Total weighted N 1.1M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q3. Households can have individuals in many age groups, so percentages do not sum to 100%. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal p rogram numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program - counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for food programs removes double all types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 92

108 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households Client Households 4. 2 .3 Single and Multiple Race/Ethnicity Previously we described the unweighted racial and ethnic characteristics of survey respondents (Section 2.5.1), and we provided the distribution of race and ethnicity of individual clients 4.1.3) to ch (Section aracterize the clients of Feeding America food programs. In our examination of household demograp hic characteristics, we explore the racial and ethnic diversity within clients’ of a single race or households by examining whether all members of the clients’ household are - Single ). 6 - ethnicity, or of multiple races and ethnicities (Table 4 person households are categorized based on the individual’s reported status as single or multiple race or ethnicity. This exploration is relevant when considering recent lit erature that documents the distinct cultural experiences of 65 multiracial individuals and households as compared to those who are of a single race. Across all include household members who of different are programs, 14.7 percent of client households very similar patterns. racial/ ethnic groups. Households of m eal and grocery clients follow 65 Kelly Faye Jackson. (2012). “Living the multiracial experience: shifting racial expressions, resisting race, and seeking 60. - 11(1): 42 Qualitative Social Work, ” community. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 93

109 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 6 Single and multiple race/ethnicity households Table 4 . of program Type All food programs Race/ethnicity Grocery Meal households All race or ethnicity 88.9% Single 84.7% 85.3% Multiple race or ethnicity 11.1% 15.3% 14.7% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.1M 0.1M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Households at least one child with 76.5% or ethnicity 72.4% 76.6% Single race 27.6% Multiple or ethnicity race 23.4% 23.5% Households with at least one senior 84.8% Single or ethnicity race 88.5% 88.6% Multiple race or ethnicity 15.2% 11.5% 11.4% Households with at least one child and one senior ethnicity or 78.1% 78.3% 73.8% Single race Multiple or ethnicity 26.2% 21.7% 21.9% race with or no children seniors Households race or ethnicity 92.2% 88.4% 89.2% Single race or ethnicity 7.8% 11.6% 10.8% Multiple Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Survey, Q4, Q4A, and Q4B. Client Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. One person households were counted as single or multiple race or ethnicity based on the individual’s reported status as singl e or multiple race or ethnicity. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which ng data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ents. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as due to item nonresponse from participating cli survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers tables because of valid skips. do not sum to all food program numbers because the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all food programs removes double the weight for counting of clients served by both - types of programs. When comparing different types of households, those containing children are statistically significantly m ore likely to multiple races or ethnicities than those without children. Across contain nearly one in four ( all programs, ) households with at least one child contain household 23.5 percent members who are from more than one racial/ethnic group. Although th e difference may in part be due to households without children more often being single person and therefore single race/ethnicity households, the findings may also be a reflection of the current changing demographics of the nation, as shown in the 2010 Cen sus report that indicates increases since 2000 66 in the percentages of people of different races and ethnicities who are married or live together. 66 Households and Families . , 14 - C2010BR 2010, 2010 Census Briefs, U . S . Census Bureau Hunger in America 2014 National Report 94

110 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 2 .4 Educational Attainment in Client Households 4. Educational qualifications often drive employment opportun ities and, in turn, income. Education also provides benefits beyond the individual; better education produces positive spillovers to society as a whole through greater productivity, higher earnings, greater civic engagement, and more 67 Because o i n individual educational innovation. f these spillovers, we are interested not only attainment but also educational attainment at the household level. Consequently, i n addition to ) , w e use repor ting of the clients ( reporting the educational attainment of all adult Section 4.1.3 educational attainment of all adult members of client households to calculate the highest educational - 7). level among the adults within each client household (Table 4 - . Client households by highest educational attainment, among adult household Table 4 7 members of program Type All food Education programs Meal Grocery level households All high school (HS) 15.0% 13.9% 14.3% Less than 26.9% diploma 31.9% HS 32.2% equivalency diploma General or GED 20.1% 12.4% 13.0% License, certificate, or degree beyond HS 7.0% 9.2% 9.0% or 2 college 22.3% 22.7% 19.2% year college degree Some - higher 4 college degree or year 11.7% 9.5% 9.5% - Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.5M 0.6M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Q5. Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. License, certificate, or degree beyond HS includes business, trade, or technical licenses. Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: All data were weighted as described in ng data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ing clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as due to item nonresponse from participat survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number wer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across of respondents eligible to ans program numbers program numbers and grocery Meal do not sum to all food program numbers because tables because of valid skips. the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs removes double - counting of clients served by both types of programs. Across all programs, in 31.9 percent of households the highest level of education among adult members is a high school diploma; an a dditional 13.0 percent have a G E quivalency D iploma eneral (GED). For nearly 15 percent of households the highest educational attainment is less than a high 67 “An Analysis of Education Externalities with Applications to Development in the Deep (2007) . Walter W. McMahon. Contempor ” 482. - 25(3): 459 , ary Economic Policy . South Hunger in America 2014 National Report 95

111 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households school diploma. For these households the lack of higher education may limit employment opportunities which may render them more susceptible to economic fluctuations. Although client , households with high levels of educational attainment are less prevalent, nearly 1 0 percent of and collectively households report the highest education level at a four - year college degree or higher, demonstrating 40.8 percent of households contain a member with education beyond high school, the range of household circumstances among those seeking charitable food assistance. 4. 2 .5 Households with Military Ser vice Members The Client Survey ne in the whether anyo regarding military service to ascertain question a included 69 68 , ever served in the U.S. military . client’s household has Looking at program type, we see a similar pattern of military service across household arrangements for grocery programs. The pattern for somewhat different as a statistically significantly higher percent of 29.5 meal programs, however, is client households include a past or present military service member. 68 The Client Survey also included a question about current military service, the results of which were originally included - here. See erratum related to current military service da ta at: http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger - in - america/our - in america/errata.html . - research/hunger 69 Footnote intentionally left blank. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 96

112 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 8. Client household military service Table 4 Type of program All food Meal programs Grocery Military service households All household member has ever No served 67.4% 78.3% 77.7% At least one household member has served 19.6% 20.3% 29.5% Other 3.1% 2.1% 2.1% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted - reporting client households 0.2M 0.5M 0.6M non 5.4M Total N 1.1M weighted 5.8M Households with at least one child No household member has ever served 90.8% 86.1% 86.2% At least one household member has served 8.9% 12.9% 12.9% Other 0.3% 1.0% 1.0% Households with at least one senior 63.0% served ever 67.1% 67.9% No household member has 29.5% At one household member has served 34.1% least 30.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.9% Other Households with at least one child and one senior member household has No ever served 69.1% 75.5% 75.3% has At least one household member served 30.3% 23.4% 23.5% Other 0.6% 1.1% 1.2% no seniors or children Households with ever household member has No served 67.0% 80.0% 78.7% 17.8% 29.1% 19.2% At least one household member has served Other 3.9% 2.2% 2.1% Data Source: Hunger . in Q10 America 2014 Client Survey, *In this table the category ‘Other’ encompasses clients who did not indicate whether anyone in their household ever served in the military . NOTE: lated from valid responses which All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calcu exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excl udes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers becaus e counting of clients served by both - ms removes double the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food progra types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 97

113 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 2 .6 Languages Spoken at Home 4. one of the primary language s of Across all programs, 90.7 percent of households speak English as - 9 ). Only 13.1 percent of households speak Spanish as one of the the adults at home (Table 4 s of adults at home, and 4.1 percent indicate other languages as one of the primary primary language . These numbers may be underestimates of the circumstances of the full network because languages s served by nonparticipating food banks in Puerto Rico and California may be more likely household to speak languages other than English as a primary language at home. Also, although surveys were offered in five languages, data collectors were not always available t o recruit in all languages and this may have limited variability in respondent languages. Table 4 - 9 . Client households by primary language(s) spoken in household among adults Type of program All food Languages programs Meal Grocery All households 95.7% English 90.2% 90.7% Spanish 6.9 % 13.7 % 13.1 % 1.5 Other Indo - European languages % 1.1 % 1.2 % 0. % 1.6 % 1.7 % 4 Asian and Pacific Island languages Arabic 2 % 0.3 % 0. 0. 3 % languages not specified % 0. 8 Other 1.0 % 1.0 % Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.6M 0.6M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M 2014 Survey, Q9. Client Data Source: Hunger in America Respondents could mark more than one language so percentages may not sum to 100%. Other Indo - European languages include French, Russian, Haitian Creole, and German; Asian and Pacific Island languages include Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, and Hmong. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can v ary across tables because of valid skips. Meal numbers because program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program - counting of clients se all food programs removes double the weight for the unduplicated count that forms the basis for rved by both types of programs. significantly Some differences emerge between meal and grocery client households, as statistically a speaking English as ts than grocery clients report more meal clien primary language at home. are Grocery client households statistically significantly more likely than meal client households to at home. as a primary language speak Spanish or Asian and Pacific Island languages Hunger in America 2014 National Report 98

114 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 2 Housing Characteristics 4. .7 an important indicator of stability in the lives of Feeding America Housing circumstances can be clients, including type of housing, payment arrangements, ability to store and cook food, and recent transitions in housing circumstances. ary and nontemporary housing. Nontemporary The Client Survey differentiated between tempor the potential to be long arrangements are defined as those that have - term residences, such as apartments and houses, and temporary arrangements are those that, although they could be long - typically intended to house people long term not term situations, are . , such as shelters or motels Across all food programs, 93.2 percent of client households , residing in nontemporary housing are 1). - and 6.9 percent are residing in temporary housing (Figure 4 Figure 4 Client 1. - households in temporary versus nontemporary housing 7% Client households in temporary housing Client households in nontemporary housing 93% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q18 . Weighted nonreporting client households 0.6M; total weighted N 5.8M . he 10), t - Among the 93.2 percent of client households residing in nontemporary housing (Table 4 are houses or townhouses (42.9 percent), apartments most common types of nontemporary housing (33.7 percent), and mobile homes or house trailers (12.5 percent). Households with at least one child a and households with at least one senior re both statistically significantly more likely than all households to be living in houses or townhouses, and statistically significantly less likely to be living in apartments. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 99

115 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 4 10. Client households by type of nontemporary housing Table - Type of program All food nonte mporary Type of programs Meal Grocery housing households All 66.4% 95.5% Nontemporary housing 93.2% Apartment 30.2% 34.3% 33.7% 44.6% townhouse 20.2% 42.9% House or housing 0.3% 0.2% Military 0.2% Mobile home or house 3.9% 13.3% 12.5% trailer Rented room in a rooming or boarding house 11.8% 3.1% 3.9% Temporary housing 4.5% 6.9% 33.6% 100% 100% Total 100% 0.2M 0.6M 0.6M Weighted nonreporting client households Total weighted N 1.1 M 5. 4 5. 8 M M Households with at least one child Nontemporary housing 96.9% 96.3% 72.3% Apartment 30.6% 31.1% 30.8% House or townhouse 24.8% 50.8% 50.2% Military housing 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 4.1% trailer house 13.1% 13.3% Mobile home or Rented in a rooming or boarding house 12.8% 1.5% 2.0% room housing 27.7% 3.1% 3.7% Temporary 100% 100% 100% Total with at least one senior Households Nontemporary housing 88.6% 97.9% 97.5% Apartment 36.0% 30.7% 30.8% House or townhouse 37.4% 51.0% 50.6% Military housing 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Mobile home or house trailer 8.3% 13.6% 13.1% Rented 2.9% 2.5% 6.8% in room house a rooming or boarding Temporary housing 11.4% 2.1% 2.5% 100% 100% 100% Total Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q18. Italicized lines sum to the percentage of client households in nontemporary housing. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonre sponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as sur vey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted num ber of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary ac ross numbers because tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all food programs removes double - counting of clients served b y both the weight for types of programs. Overall, a small but notable percentage (6.9 percent) of Feeding Am erica client households report living in temporary housing (Table 4 - 11 ). The most commonly reported types of temporary housing shelters, missions , or transitional living situations (2.6 percent of all households), and living on are statistically are the street (1.5 percent of all households). Meal program client households meal program (33.6 percent of significantly more likely than grocery program client households Hunger in America 2014 National Report 100

116 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 4 11 . Client households by type of temporary housing Table - Type of program All food Type housing programs Meal of Grocery temporary All households 33.6% 4.5% 6.9% Temporary housing building, bus or train station, Abandoned park, 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% or airport campground, boat, or recreational vehicle (RV) 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% Car, van, street the Living 7.3% 1.0% 1.5% on 1.3% Motel hotel temporarily or 0.4% 0.4% Rented room in a rooming or boarding house 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% Residential facility or supervised housing 3.3% 0.1% 0.5% treatment or transitional living situation 17.8% Shelter, 1.3% 2.6% mission, 0.3% Unknown 0.3% 0.8% 95.5% Nontemporary housing 93.2% 66.4% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0. 2 M 0. 6 M 0.6 M Total weighted N M 5.4 M 5.8 M 1.1 with at least one child Households Temporary housing 3.1% 3.7% 27.7% Abandoned building, bus or train station, park, 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% or airport campground, Car, van, boat, or recreational vehicle (RV) 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% the 0.4% 0.3% 1.4% street Living on Motel hotel temporarily 3.2% 0.7% 0.8% or in a rooming or boarding Rented 0.1% 0.9% 0.8% room house Residential treatment facility or supervised housing 0.9% 0.1% 0.1% Shelter, mission, or transitional living situation 20.7% 0.8% 1.3% Unknown 0.1% 0.2% 1.1% 96.9% 96.3% Nontemporary housing 72.3% 100% Total 100% 100% Households with at least one senior Temporary housing 11.4% 2.1% 2.5% Abandoned building, bus or train station, park, 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% campground, or airport Car, van, boat, or recreational vehicle (RV) 2.3% 0.2% 0.2% Living the street 4.5% 0.4% 0.6% on hotel temporarily 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% Motel or room in a rooming or boarding Rented 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% house Residential treatment facility or supervised housing 1.0% 0.1% 0.2% Shelter, mission, or transitional living situation 2.5% 0.3% 0.4% Unknown 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% % 97.9 Nontemporary housing 97.5 % 88.6 % Total 100% 100% 100% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q18A. Italicized lines sum to the percentage of client households in temporary housing. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participat ing clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to ans wer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across program numbers Meal numbers because do not sum to all food program program numbers and grocery tables because of valid skips. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 101

117 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households counting of clients served by both removes double the unduplicated count that - forms the basis for the weight for all food programs types of programs. client households compared to 4.5 percent of grocery program client households) to report residing in temporary housing, a finding li kely attributable to many meal programs being designed to serve at least one shelter residents and others in temporary housing. Relatively fewer households with child n Some of the client households residing i or at least one senior repo rt temporary housing. “homeless” as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and are considered temporary housing Urban Development (HUD); others may not be if they are living in temporary housing situations 70 from all food programs . that do not meet this definition At least 4.9 percent of client households 71 . ” This percentage is greater among client households at meet HUD’s definition of “homeless may meal programs, with 27.1 percent that may meet the HUD definition of “homeless.” The remaining 2.0 percent of all food program households and 6.5 percent of meal program households in temporary housing may or may not be considered homeless, depending on their resources and circumstances . rt Among those households in nontem porary housing, clients repo how their household pays for the households of ). Across all food programs, 63.7 percent 2 1 they currently live (Table 4 - where place rent or lease their home. Just 15.4 percent of households have a mortgage and 11.5 percent own . ar their housing free and cle 70 Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended by S. 896. The Homeless Emergency Assistance and The McKinney - t of 2009SEC. 103. [42 USC 11302] GENERAL DEFINITION OF Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Ac HOMELESS INDIVIDUAL. 71 This percentage includes client households reporting residing in abandoned buildings, bus or train stations, parks, ecreational vehicles; living on the street; and residing in campgrounds, or airports; residing in cars, vans, boats, or r shelters, missions, or transitional living situations. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 102

118 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 1 . Client households with various housing payment arrangements, among clients Table 4 2 residing in nontemporary housing Type of program All food housing for Meal Grocery Payment programs households All not have to pay rent 14.5% 8.8% 9.3% Do free Own and clear 8.8% 11.5% 11.5% with mortgage 6.7% 15.8% 15.4% Own 63.9% lease 70.1% 63.7% Rent or 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.6M 0.7M 0.7M 5.1M 5.3M Total weighted N with at least one child Households not have to Do rent 8.6% 8.4% 8.4% pay free and clear 3.2% 8.3% 8.2% Own with mortgage 12.2% 16.4% 16.4% Own 66.9% lease 76.0% 67.0% Rent or with at least one senior Households rent Do have to pay not 7.0% 7.6% 7.7% 20.2% 20.9% clear and free Own 20.7% Own mortgage 11.6% 20.6% 20.2% with 51.6% lease 60.6% 51.4% Rent or with at least one child and one senior Households to pay rent not have 31.8% Do 7.6% 7.5% Own free and clear 13.0% 16.7% 16.8% Own mortgage 29.4% with 25.6% 25.7% or lease 25.8% 50.2% 50.0% Rent Households with no children or seniors pay 12.2% 10.8% 18.8% Do rent not have to 3.7% and clear free 7.6% 7.4% Own Own with mortgage 3.6% 12.2% 11.7% Rent or lease 74.0% 69.3% 68.7% Data Survey, Q19. Source: Client Hunger in America 2014 Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresp onse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary numbers because because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program tables removes double - counting of clients served by both all food programs the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for s of programs. type Comparing households across the two programs types, grocery program client households are statistically significantly more likely than meal program client households to own a home with a statistically eholds that include seniors are mortgage. Looking across household compositions, hous significantly more likely than other household types to own a home with either a mortgage or free and clear. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 103

119 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households related Another housing - characteristic we examine is recent housing transitions experienced by 1 3 - y respondents (Table 4 surve ). Because respondents could have experienced housing transitions that did not involve their entire household, this analysis is done at the respondent level, as opposed to the household level. Therefore, we explore the weighted per centage of respondents experiencing quarter (26.9 percent) of respondents report transitions rather than households. More than one - lients at meal programs report living in two or more places in the past 12 months. C the highest of moves: 48.2 percent living in two or more places over the past 12 months. report number l number of respondents report other housing transitions. Across all A smaller but substantia , 22.3 percent of respondents report they started living with another person or family in th e programs foreclosure or eviction in the past five experienc ed having 12 months, and 15.5 percent report past years. More meal than grocery program respondents report these types of transitions. 4 - 1 3 . Respondents by recent housing transitions Table Type of program All food Transition programs Meal Grocery Number of places respondent lived within the last months 12 73.1% 76.0% 1 51.8% 2 24.1% 14.8% 15.7% 3 or more 24.1% 9.2% 11.2% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting respondents 0.2M 0.6M 0.7M Total weighted N 1.8M 5.4M 6.0M 12 past the Respondent started living with another person or family within months Yes 21.4% 22.3% 31.0% 78.6% 77.7% No 69.0% 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting respondents 0.2M 0.2M 0.1M Total weighted N 1.8M 5.4M 6.0M Respondent experienced a foreclosure or eviction the past during 5 years Yes 19.3% 15.0% 15.5% No 80.7% 85.0% 84.5% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted respondents 0.1M 0.2M 0.2M nonreporting Total weighted N 1.8M 5.4M 6.0M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q17, Q20, and Q21. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Total weighted N for this table represents the weighted number of survey respondents. Because respondents at grocery programs were not random ly selected among household members, respondent experience may not represent all Feeding America clients. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which ex clude nonresponse a nd valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as surv ey nonr esponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary acr oss tab les numbers because do not sum to all food program program numbers and grocery program numbers the Meal because of valid skips. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 104

120 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households the weight for all removes double - counting of clients served by both t ypes of unduplicated count that forms the basis for food programs programs. The final housing characteristic we examine is cooking or cold storage capacity at home 4 to cook and store food at home is an . Having access to equipment essential element of (Table 4 ) - 1 meal programs, such as kitchens and preparing meals at home. shelters, When cons idering that most prepared meals to clients outside of the home, it is not surprising that statistically - provide pre significantly fewer meal program client households, as compared to grocery program client households, have the se capacities. It is possible that meal program clients rely on these programs to because they do not have individual access to equipment that cooks prepare the food they consume Overall most client households report having equipment to cook and store food, or keeps food cold. which was defined broadly, and therefore may include households that have only provisional equipment such as hot plates, camp stoves, or coolers. 4 . Table 4 Client households by cooking or cold storage capacity at home 1 - Type program of All food programs ains... Meal Grocery Housing cont households All Equipment to cook food 77.3% 95.6% 93.9% 0.2M 0.9M 1.0M Weighted nonreporting client households 5.4M 5.8M Total weighted N 1.1M to keep food cold 75.2% 95.5% 93.4% Equipment Weighted nonreporting client households 0.9M 0.9M 0.2M 5.4M 5.8M Total weighted N 1.1M with at least one child Households 89.9% Equipment cook food to 96.8% 96.7% cold food 96.8% 97.0% 88.5% Equipment to keep Households at least one senior with to cook food 91.2% 97.2% 96.9% Equipment keep food cold to 90.0% 97.1% 96.6% Equipment Households with at least one child and one senior 92.2% Equipment cook food to 97.2% 97.1% Equipment to keep food cold 91.9% 97.2% 97.1% or Households with no children seniors 70.6% Equipment 89.6% 93.7% food to cook cold Equipment to keep food 67.5% 93.2% 88.4% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q44 and Q45. Equipment to cook food includes stove, microwave, or hot plate. Equipment to keep food cold includes any place to store food to keep it does not spoil, like a refrigerator. cold so it All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages repo NOTE: rted in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includ es missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers numbers because and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program the we all food programs the unduplicated count that forms the basis for removes double - counting of clients served by both ight for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 105

121 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 3 Work, School, and Barriers and Bridges to Work 4. Employment increases the likelihood of becoming fi is able to nancially secure. Yet not everyone extenuating personal participate in the workforce, either due to labor market conditions or select situations . The Client Survey asked respondents to report on the employment status of people in their households, time spent out of the workforce , and potential barriers or bridges that their . Specifically, the survey asked households face in seeking employment , including adult student status respondents whether they had worked for pay within the last 12 months; whether they typically time; and whether they had worked within the last four weeks. If respondents - or full - worked part indicated that they had not worked for pay within the last four weeks, the Client Survey probed how work during the previous long they had been out of work; whether they were actively looking for four weeks; and if not, reasons why not. If another person in the household was employed in the past 12 months, respondents were asked to answer this same battery of questions for the other person in their household who worked the most months in the past 12 months. Employment circumstances were asked only about these two people in the household to ease survey burden on respondents. In the following sections, the person in the household with the greatest number of months of - regardless of whether this was full — nt over the past 12 months employme time - or part is referred to as the most employed person. It is this person in the household on — employment ost whom all the employment data are reported. We first explore the number of months the m employed person in each client household has worked during the past year, and whether that time. - time or part - employment is typically full We then turn to an examination of employment in the past four weeks. We describe employment our weeks of the most employed person in each household, and focus specifically status in the past f the subset of households in which the most employed person has not worked within the past four weeks. In these analyses, we examine how long the most employed person who is not currently working has been without employment; whether he or she has looked actively for work in the past four weeks; and if not looking for work, reasons why not. Finally, we explore potential barriers and bridges to employment that some Feeding America households face, including extenuating circumstances that may prevent employment, and educational activities that may ultimately promote employment. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 106

122 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households These data provide a glimpse of employment in client households, but should be interpreted within the lim itations of what the survey questions reveal. For analytic clarity we focus on the person in the household with the most months of employment over the past 12 months, but this person may not d person has been without be the only employed person in the household. If the most employe employment in the past four weeks it is possible, for example, that another household member has since become the primary earner, or seasonal employment has caused a temporary interruption in scribe the employment circumstances of the person employment. Thus, while the data do de employed the most months in the past year, they do not fully account for employment of other household members who may have worked less often. .1 Household Employment 4. 3 As described in the previous n analyzing household employment we focus on the most section, i employed person in the household, defined as the person who has worked for pay the most number of months within the past 12 months . This individual is typically a primary source of income for the household. As such, interruptions in this individual’s employment may have profound effects on the household’s ability to be self - sufficient, potentially increasing their need for charitable food program services. he most employed person months employed by t over the past 12 months, we see Looking first at include 53.9 percent of client households , both meal and grocery, that across all food programs at person who has worked for pay in the past 12 months . Among all client households, least one perc 34.3 worked more than six of the past ent report that the person employed the longest has 5 at least one child ). Comparing households with 1 - and households with at least 12 months (Table 4 one senior to all households, we see that employment rates and durations are statistically significantly higher in households with children, and statistically significantly lower in those with seniors. In households with at least one child, has 70.6 percent of households report that someone 12 months . In worked in the past 12 months, and 48. 9 percent worked more than six of the past , 34.0 percent of households report that at least one senior households with has worked in someone . These patterns months the past 12 months, and 21.5 percent worked more than six of the past 12 imilar for meal and grocery programs as well. are s Hunger in America 2014 National Report 107

123 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 1 . Client households by most employed person in the past 12 months Table 4 5 of program Type All food Meal Grocery programs Months employed during the past 12 months All households 45.7% 46.1% None 51.7% than 1 month Less 6.7% 4.4% 4.5% - months 10.7% 7.5% 7.6% 1 3 7.4% 6 months 9.3% 7.5% 4 - - 9 months 10.2% 17.8% 17.3% 7 - 10 months 11.4% 17.3% 17.0% 12 100% 100% 100% Total 0.0M 0.2M 0.2M Weighted nonreporting client households 1.1M 5.4M Total weighted N 5.8M with at least one child Households 35.4% 29.1% 29.4% None Less 1 month 5.4% 3.7% 3.7% than - 9.9% months 1 8.9% 8.9% 3 4 months 7.7% 6 9.2% 9.1% - months 9 7 25.9% 26.1% 21.8% - 10 - months 19.7% 23.0% 23.0% 12 with at least one senior Households None 66.0% 66.0% 69.8% Less than 1 month 7.0% 3.2% 3.2% 1 months 3.7% 3 5.0% 5.1% - 4 - 6 months 2.6% 4.3% 4.2% 8.4% 7 9 months - 12.0% 12.0% 10 - 12 months 8.6% 9.4% 9.5% - Data Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q8 and Q8A source: H. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: ng clients include missing data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporti well as due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as weighted N reflects the weighted number survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for food programs removes double - all the weight for types of programs. 4. 3.2 Full - Time and Part - Time Work The number of months of e mployment does not tell the full story of workforce participation. The number of hours typically worked per week is an important factor in achieving the financial stability employment can bring. We define full - time employment using the standard measure of more than 30 hours per week of employment. It is here that we see that although many Feeding America client households have an employed household member , they are typically working part - time rather than ). Across all household composit 6 1 - full (Table 4 time - ions, and focusing on all food programs Hunger in America 2014 National Report 108

124 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households person combined, the with the longest employment duration is statistically significantly more likely time rather than full time. Households with at least one child are the most likely - - to be employed part - time employment of the most employed to report fu , and households with at least one ll person the least likely. senior - 1 6 Table 4 Client households by typical hours worked per week, among households with . employment in the past 12 months Type of program All food programs Meal Grocery Typical hours worked per week All households Full - time 41.6% 42.3% 43.0% Part - 58.4% 57.7% 57.0% time 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.2M 0.2M Total weighted N 0.5M 2.3M 2.5M Households with at least one child Full - time 49.4% 47.1% 47.0% Part 53.0% 52.9% 50.6% time - Households with at least one senior Full - time 27.7% 35.6% 35.7% Part - time 72.3% 64.4% 64.3% Data source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q8, Q8A and Q8 H. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. For the purposes of analyses employment more than 30 hours per week was considered full time. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which ata ude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing d excl due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as we ll as number survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N ca n vary across Meal tables because of valid skips. program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs removes double - counting of clients types of programs. 4. 3 .3 Being Unemployed or Out of the Workforce finition of an unemployed person requires that the The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) de individual without a job be 16 years of age or older, has looked for work in the past four weeks, and 72 . is currently available for work Given this definition of unemployment, not all people in Feeding America client households who are not working are officially unemployed. Consequently, we use the to refer to people who are both not currently working and do not meet the out of the workforce term technical definition of unemployed. The following data describe unemployment and being out of the 72 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of unemployment: . bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed http://www. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 109

125 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households who workforce among those “most employed” individuals in Feeding America client households have worked the most months of the past 12 months, but have not worked in the past four weeks. We explore reasons why some have not looked for work in the past four weeks, finding that age and health are often the driving forces behind leaving the work force. 2 shows employment status in the past four weeks of the most employed person in Feeding 4 Figure - America client households: 34.4 percent of households indicate that the most employed person has worked within the past four weeks. Nearly a quarter (2 3.3 percent) of households report that the most employed person is unemployed and actively looking for work. The remaining 42.3 percent do not meet the BLS requirements for being unemployed; thus, in 42.3 percent of the households that es, the most employed person is out of the workforce. Feeding America serv person Figure 4 2. Employment status in the past four weeks of the most employed - 23% 42% Out of the workforce Employed Unemployed 34% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q8, and Q8A 8H. – Number may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Weighted nonreporting client households 2.7M; total weighted N 5.8M. Among households where the person who was the most employed in the past 12 months is not currently working (encompassing both unemployed and out of the workforce) , the majority (70.1 for more than one without employment per of households report that this person has been cent) ). This pattern holds across program type and ac 4 - 1 7 year (Table ross household composition type. Health and retirement are the most common reasons why people are not in the workforce (Table 4 - 18). Also noteworthy is that households with at least one child , as compared to other household Hunger in America 2014 National Report 110

126 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households statistically types, report a significantly higher percentage of the most employed person being ess . six months or l without employment for 1 7 Table 4 Client households by duration without employment , among client households where - . currently not working most employed person is Type of program All food Length of time without employment Meal Grocery programs All households than 1 month 4.8% 5.6% 5.6% Less 1 6 months - 16.8% 16.8% 19.0% 7 - 12 months 9.5% 7.3% 7.5% More 1 year 66.6% 70.3% 70.1% than 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.2M 0.2M Total weighted N 0.8M 3.5M 3.8M Households with at least one child Less than 1 month 8.0% 7.5% 7.6% 24.7% 1 6 months - 26.7% 26.4% months 12 9.3% 9.3% 6.7% 7 - More 1 year 60.7% 56.4% 56.7% than with at least one senior Households 1.7% 1 month than Less 3.6% 3.4% 1 - 6 months 6.1% 8.3% 8.3% 9.2% 7 12 months - 4.7% 4.8% More than 1 year 83.0% 83.4% 83.5% H. - Q8A Q8 and Data source: Hunger in America 2014 Survey, Client Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weight ed number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across bers because tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program num removes double - counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs types of programs. To understand better the circumstances surrounding those who are not working, we explore ther the in the client households formerly most employed person whe who are not currently working have been actively look ing for work in the past four weeks, and if not, the main reason for not looking for work (Table 4 - 1 8 ). Nearly a quarter (23.3 percent) of households report that the actively looking for work. A closer examination and formerly most employed person is unemployed ouseholds with h of household types shows are the least likely to report an active at least one senior ent of households reporting active job searching. perc 13.6 job search, with only Hunger in America 2014 National Report 111

127 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 18. Client households’ work status in the past four weeks; and reasons for not looking Table 4 for work, among client households where formerly most employed person is now out of the workforce Type of program All food and reasons for not looking for work programs Meal Work status Grocery All households 24.8% Employed 34.4% 35.0% 26.1% 23.0% Unemployed and looking for work 23.3% Out of the workforce and not looking for work because... 49.1% 42.0% 42.3% Are a caretaker for another person 1.4% 1.3% 0.5% Are disabled or in poor health 21.9% 22.5% 22.0% Are in school or in job training 1.6% 0.9% 0.8% Are retired 12.4% 13.3% 12.4% Because of some other reason 4.0% 8.9% 3.6% could not find a job Stopped looking because 1.4% 0.8% 0.8% Unknown 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.1M 0.1M Total weighted N 5.4M 5.8M 1.1M with at least one child Households Employed 40.5% 50.3% 49.9% Unemployed and looking for work 24.9% 25.5% 25.3% Out of the workforce and not looking for work because... 24.3% 24.8% 34.6% Are a caretaker for another person 2.8% 1.7% 1.7% Are disabled or in poor health 14.4% 24.0% 13.9% Are in school or in job training 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% Are retired 1.4% 3.4% 3.4% Because of some other reason 5.4% 3.4% 3.5% Stopped looking because could not find a job 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% Unknown 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% Households with at least one senior Employed 17.8% 21.0% 21.0% Unemployed and looking for work 13.0% 13.9% 13.6% 65.4% Out of the workforce and not looking for work because... 69.2% 65.1% Are a caretaker for another person 1.4% 1.4% 0.4% Are disabled or in poor health 23.9% 23.5% 16.4% Are in school or in job training 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% Are retired 46.4% 33.9% 34.6% Because of some other reason 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% Stopped looking because could not find a job 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% Unknown 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% Q8 and - Q8A Data source: Hunger in American 2014 Client Survey, H. to rounding. Numbers may not sum to 100% due Responses for in school or in job training were combined in analyses. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which urvey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to s well as due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as pating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number survey nonresponse from nonpartici of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across ips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because tables because of valid sk Hunger in America 2014 National Report 112

128 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs removes double - counting of clients served by both types of programs. is employed the most in the past 12 months now out of the Among all households where the person not actively looking for work, the most common reason given (21.9 percent) is workforce, that is, that this person is now disabled or in poor health (Table 4 - 1 8 ). Th e second most common reason (12.4 percent) is because person is retired. Not surprisingly this pattern differs for households this with , where the most common reason is retirement, and the second most at least one senior in poor h common reason is being disabled or are the primary reasons health and age ealth. Thus, are out of the workforce and why people who have worked the most months in the past 12 months no longer looking for work. Potential Barriers 3 .4 to Employment and Bridges 4. There are many life circumstances that may act as barriers to employment, such as health, caregiving responsibility, age, and criminal history. Similarly, there are circumstances such as job training and mately may increase the education that may negatively affect current employment status, but ulti likelihood of future employment. Client Survey respondents were asked about such circumstances in their households. Although clients do not identify these circumstances specifically as related to household employment status, we desc ribe them here under potential barriers and bridges to employment to provide a fuller picture of the conditions surrounding employment in client households. Potential Barriers to Employment In the previous section we presented data on reasons why people no longer in the workforce are not looking for work. The most common reasons for not seeking employment include the worker being Some households r eport that the most employed person disabled or in poor health, or being retired. grandparents who is now a caregiver. One specific instance of this probed on the survey is that of have responsibility for gr 19). - Among client households andchildren who live with them (Table 4 3 percent report being grandparents who care for a resident grandchild. from grocery programs, 18. significantly less common among client households from meal programs, where statistically This is only 6.8 percent care for grandchildren. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 113

129 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 4 - 1 9 . Respondents responsible for gra ndchildren in the household Table Type of program All food programs Meal Employment Grocery barrier All households Care for grandchildren they live with 6.8% 18.3% 17.4% 0.2M 0.2M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Q12. Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q11 and NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across Meal tables because of valid skips. p rogram numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because - counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs removes double types of programs. Another potenti who have been al barrier to household employment is having household members - (Table 4 released from prison in the previous year and may have difficulty finding employment ). 20 Release from prison, while a substantial barrier to employment, less common o verall with only 7.4 is percent of meal program client households and 3.0 percent of grocery program client households reporting this barrier. 4 - 20 . Client households with household member(s) released from prison in the past Table months 12 program of Type All food barri Employment er programs Meal Grocery All households 12 months 7.4% 3.0% 3.2% Household member released from prison in past Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.2M 0.2M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Survey, Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Q11 and Q12. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip pat terns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal program n umbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for removes double all - counting of clients served by both food programs types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 114

130 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households Potential Bridges to Employment levels of educational attainment can be a bridge to employment, increas ing one’s Having higher 73 74 , Obtaining additional employment prospects and potential earnings. education can be challenging, however, requiring investments of time and money. I n addition to probing the educational attainment of all food program clients (Section 4.1.3) and the level of educational attainment in client households (Section 4.2.4), t he Client Survey probed whether adults in the household are currently er full - time or part - time (Table 4 - 21 ). Looking at all food programs, students, eith 18.7 percent of households contain one or more adult students. Respondents do not always indicate - whether is attending school full each student in their household time or part - time . A mon g those full are significantly more adult students however, statistically report this information, time - who do rather than part - is similar for grocery program client households. In contrast, a time . This pattern households report having students, and the students much lower percentage of meal pr ogram client evenly split between full - time and part - time. Finally, compared to all households, a statistically are significantly higher percentage of households with adult students, and a at least one child contain statistically significantly lower percentage of households with at least one senior contain adult students. 73 Anthony P. Carnevale, Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. (2010). “Help Wanted: Projections of Job and Education Requirements Through 2018.” Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce . 74 Gl oria L. Beckles, and Benedict I. Truman. (2011). “ Education and I ncome — United States, 2005 and 2009. ” Morbidity , 0(01) , Supplements, 6 and Mortality Weekly Report 17. - 13 Hunger in America 2014 National Report 115

131 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 21 . Client households by adult student - status Table 4 Type of program All food Meal Adult student status Grocery programs All households least one adult student 9.5% 19.6% 18.7% At - student(s) 4.7% time 12.0% 11.4% Full Part - time student(s) 4.7% 6.7% 6.5% Unknown 4.6% 12.3% 11.9% status students 90.5% 80.4% 81.3% No adult 0.5M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.5M 0.1M Total 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M weighted N Households with at least one child At least one adult student 28.2% 25.8% 25.6% Full - time student(s) 14.6% 16.6% 16.4% 13.4% Part time student(s) - 9.7% 9.7% 5.1% 5.2% 4.6% status Unknown 74.2% No 71.8% students 74.4% adult with at least one senior Households 4.1% 11.1% 10.7% At least one adult student - time student(s) 6.3% 3.0% 6.5% Full Part time student(s) 1.5% 4.3% 4.2% - 3.5% Unknown status 9.8% 9.5% No adult students 95.9% 88.9% 89.3% Hunger Q6A. and Q6 America Data Source: in Survey, 2014 Client time students, and students of unknown status, so percentages may not sum to the total Households may have full - time and part - percentage of students. NOTE: n Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which All data were weighted as described i ng data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi due to item nonresponse from particip ating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as number survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted nswer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across of respondents eligible to a numbers because do not sum to all food program tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers all the unduplicated count th at forms the basis for the weight for counting of clients served by both food programs removes double - types of programs. Health, Income, and Poverty 4 4. In this section we discuss challenges to the well s and their being of Feeding America client - eholds, including health status and health conditions, medical insurance status, and income and hous poverty. These challenges can keep people out of the workforce, increase expenses, and limit ed for charitable food assistance. ne a household’s resources. Together, these challenges may increase Hunger in America 2014 National Report 116

132 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 4.4.1 Health Status and Health Conditions The Client Survey asked respondents to characterize both their own health and the health of other members of their h ouseholds. Respondents use to describe their a scale from “poor” to “excellent” ealth, while they also indicate whether another household member is h in poor health. Although such self - reports of health are necessarily broad, research has found that these reports are largely reliable 76 , 75 care use. the weighted respondents as measures of health and health Across all food programs 52.6 percent poor health to range in health substantially, from 47.4 percent reporting fair or 22). Although the most commonly endorsed reporting good, very good, or excellent health (Table 4 - category is fair health, the median category is good health. The respondent’s health, however, may be better than that of other household members, particularly he for grocery programs since this person was surveyed while out of the home picking up food for t statistically household. Data on whether any household members are in poor health support this, as significantly more households have a member other than the respondent in poor health. This holds , in which 26.2 percent true for all households, but particularly for households at least one child with in which at least one senior, of households have a member in poor health, and households with percent of households have a member in poor health. 32.6 75 Seppo Miilunpalo, Ikka Vuori, Pekka Oja, Matti Pasanen, and Helka Urponen. (1997). “ S elf - R ated H ealth S tatus A s a eported H ealth M easure: The P redictive V alue of S elf - R H ervices and on ealth St atus on the Us e of P hysician S ” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, W orking - A ge P opulation. ortality in the M 50(5): 517 - 528. 76 eported Health Status and Daniel L. McGee, Youlian Liao, Guichan Cao, and Richard S. Cooper. (1999). “ Self - R American Journal of Epidemiology, ” Mortality in a Multiethnic US Cohort. 46. - 149(1): 41 Hunger in America 2014 National Report 117

133 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - Table 4 Client households by health status of respondent and presence of another 22. poor health household member in program Type of All food Health programs Meal Grocery status All households self - reported status Respondent’s 13.7% 9.5% 10.1% Excellent Very good 20.0% 15.6% 15.9% Good 26.3% 26.6% 27.9% 29.8% 29.0% Fair 24.1% 14.3% 18.8% Poor 18.4% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.6M 0.7M Total weighted N 5.4M 5.8M 1.1M All households Another household member in poor health Yes 7.5% 25.5% 23.9% No 20.0% 48.5% 46.2% 72.5% alone Live 29.9% 26.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 0.9M 1.0M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Total weighted N with at least one child Households Another household member in poor health Yes 18.2% 26.5% 26.2% No 81.8% 73.5% 73.8% Live alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Households with at least one senior Another household member in poor health Yes 11.3% 34.1% 32.6% No 24.7% 31.4% 31.0% Live alone 64.0% 34.5% 36.4% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Survey, Client Q13 and Q13A. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weight ed number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across program numbers tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery do not sum to all food program num bers because counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for food programs removes double all - types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 118

134 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households 23), we see that high blood - Looking at select health conditions of all household members (Table 4 common among client households — more than half (57.8 percent) of all hou seholds have pressure is One third (33.2 percent) of all households high blood pressure. at least one member living with 77 a member with diabetes. one senior Households with at least report are particularly affected, with 47.2 percent of households reporting a member with diabetes, and 77.3 percent of households reporting a member with high blood pressure. The difference in percentage of households affected programs is statistically significant: more households using grocery between meal and grocery An understanding of the programs than meal programs had a member suffering from diabetes. select health conditions experienced by Feeding America clients and their household members is p articularly relevant given that nutrition education and special diets are often needed for appropriate management of these conditions. The Feeding America network faces an important challenge in on assistance they receive from food helping their clients manage their health through the nutriti programs . - 23. Client households with member(s) having select health conditions Table 4 Type of program All food Grocery health Select conditions programs Meal households All member with 33.2% diabetes 23.2% 34.2% Household 0.8M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.7M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M 57.8% Household member with high blood pressure 51.9% 58.8% 0.2M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.8M 0.8M Total weighted N 5.4M 5.8M 1.1M with at least one child Households 28.4% member with diabetes 18.7% 28.7% Household Household member with high blood pressure 34.7% 49.8% 49.4% Households with at least one senior Household member with diabetes 29.0% 48.0% 47.2% 77.3% 77.9% 65.1% Household member pressure with high blood in Q14B. and Data Source: Hunger America 2014 Client Survey, Q14A NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which ng data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling a s well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because removes double counting of cli - all ents served by both the weight for the unduplicated count that forms the basis for food programs types of programs. 77 as some clients and their household members may have Actual presence of these conditions may be underreported, high blood pressure or diabetes but be undiagnosed. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 119

135 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households Health Insurance and Unpaid Medical Bills 4.4.2 Illnesses and medical conditions require management and supervision, and medical care can present any member of the clients’ a substantial financial challenge. The Client Survey explored whether household had health insurance, either private or government sponsored (such as Medicaid or 78 - and whether the households had any unpaid medical bills (Table 4 24). Across all Medicare), ent of households contain no members with health households and all program types, 28.6 perc insurance. Lack of health insurance is most common in households with no children or seniors, in which only 59.4 percent of households include anyone with some type of health insurance. Households with are the most likely to have health insurance, at 81.1 percent of ast one senior at le 79 eholds, likely due to being eligible for Medicare. hous Many households also face unpaid medical bills — 55.1 percent of all households report some medical debt. Even with insur ance, unpaid medical bills can accumulate due to deductibles and uncovered care. Most household compositions show high levels of unpaid medical bills, but the burden is highest among households containing at least one child and at least one senior , at percent. The group with the lowest rate of unpaid medical bills is households with at least one 64.9 , in which nearly half (49.6 percent) of households still face unpaid bills. senior 78 Medicare is available to most people age 65 or older who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States. Medicaid is also available to select others younger than 65 who have disabilities or other qualifying conditions or - http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN 10043.pdf - 05 circumstances. Source: 79 The Affordable Care Act, which expands health care insurance coverage options for adults and children, particularly those who previously d id not have health insurance, went into effect after the fielding period of the Client Survey. See text.html - http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/timeline/timeline Hunger in America 2014 National Report 120

136 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 24. Client households in which no one has health insurance, and cl ient households with Table 4 medical bills unpaid Type of program All food programs Grocery Health insurance and unpaid bills Meal households All Has health insurance 36.5% 27.7% 28.6% no 0.2M 0.6M 0.7M Weighted nonreporting client households Total 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M weighted N Unpaid medical bills 52.5% 55.6% 55.1% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.6M 0.7M 0.2M 5.4M Total weighted N 5.8M 1.1M with at least one child Households Has no health insurance 14.2% 23.0% 22.7% Unpaid bills 61.4% medical 59.9% 59.9% Households with at least one senior Has no health insurance 18.5% 19.2% 18.9% medical 49.6% 50.7% 39.0% bills Unpaid Households at least one child and one senior with no health insurance 10.9% 20.3% 20.3% Has bills 60.0% medical 65.0% Unpaid 64.9% Households with no children or seniors Has no health insurance 44.7% 38.8% 40.6% Unpaid medical bills 58.0% 58.2% 57.4% Source: in Q24. and Q15 Data Hunger Survey, America 2014 Client NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participat ing clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as number survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted of respondents eligible to ans wer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because tables because of valid skips. the weight for forms the basis for all the unduplicated count that food programs removes double - counting of clients served by both types of programs. 4.4.3 Income and Poverty All of these health and health insurance needs must be met despite limited income. Although h ouseholds use grocery and meal programs for a variety of reasons, many households rely on charitable food assistance because they are operating with a highly restricted budget and may not have enough money for food. To allow a detailed picture of the finan ces of Feeding America client household households, the Client Survey probed income in both the past month and in the past months. 12 study and other (HIA) In order to ensure comparability between the Hunger in America used income questions that of income, the Client Survey assessments representative - nationally appear in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) for both monthly and annual income. While some clients may be able to report annual income, others may more easily recall Hunger in America 2014 National Report 121

137 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households eived in the last month, a pattern supported by the higher response rate for the monthly income rec income question (86 percent, see Table 4 - 25) as compared to annual income question (76 percent, - see Table 4 28). Self - reported income information is commonly probed o n surveys, but is subject to error as respondents may not recall all sources and amounts of household income, or may choose to skip 80 such questions for privacy or other personal reasons. administered interviewing, Although self - - ssisted Self A - such as the Audio Computer Interviewing (ACASI) used in HIA 2014, reduces nonresponse to sensitive questions including income, the presence of third parties who may judge 81 This may be the responses negatively may increase misreporting in those who do respond. particular ly salient for HIA 2014 clients who completed surveys at food programs with income eligibility requirements. Because program staff responsible for eligibility determinations were present, even if they could not hear responses, clients may have been biased toward providing underestimates of income to avoid inadvertently disqualifying themselves for services. W e first present monthly household income, by program type and household compositions, to give a snapshot of the circumstances of client households at the time of the survey (Table s 4 - 25, 4 - 26, - ). Looking at all households combined (Table 4 - 27 25), h ouseholds of meal program clients are 4 at all significantly more likely than those of grocery program clients to report no income statistically onth, with 26.5 percent of meal program client s reporting no household income as in the past m compared to 10.1 percent of grocery program client s . Across all food programs, meal and grocery , 11.7 percent report no income in the past month. Median monthly income is $927 , which requires critical budget management to cover all expenses, including but not limited to housing - related costs, food, clothing, transportation, and medical expenses, for all household members. Households with Despite 26) . - (Table 4 at least one child report slightly highe r median monthly incomes at $1,106 having slightly higher incomes, however, such households tend to be larger than other household 82 types; thus, they have more people to support. 80 Jeffrey C. Moore, Linda L. Stinson, and Edward J. Welniak, Jr. (2000). “Income Measurement Error in Surveys: A Review.” Journal Of Official Statistics - Stockholm, 16(4), 331 - 362. 81 Psychological and Ting Yan. (2007). “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” - Bulletin , 133(5), 859 883. Roger Tourangeau , 82 Among HIA 2014 client households, households with at least one child have a median household size of four, whereas households with at least one senior and all households have a median household size of two. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 122

138 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 25. All c lient households by reported monthl y income ranges, and monthly household Table 4 income as a percentage of the poverty level Type of program All food programs Meal Monthly household income Grocery Income in the past month 26.5% 10.1% $0 11.7% $500 or less 17.2% 12.6% 13.1% 21.2% $1,000 $501 30.5% 29.6% – $1,001 $2,000 18.7% – 28.4% 27.4% 9.4% $2,001 9.3% – $3,000 6.2% $3,001 $4,000 2.4% – 3.2% 3.1% More than $4,000 7.7% 5.7% 5.9% Total 100% 100% 100% $927 Median monthly income $649 $946 Weighted nonreporting client households 0.8M 0.8M 0.2M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M As a percentage of the poverty level 0% (no income) 10.5% 12.1% 27.1% – 1% 50% 5.1% 14.0% 14.9% – 75% 51% 12.7% 14.7% 12.5% – 100% 76% 4.7% 11.9% 12.5% 130% 101% – 18.0% 21.5% 20.9% 131% – 150% 0.5% 1.5% 1.6% 185% 151% – 4.4% 11.4% 10.8% 186% or higher 25.5% 15.0% 15.9% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 1.0M 0.9M 0.2M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q22, Q1. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Missing data in household size needed to calculate poverty level may result in some differences between income percentages an d poverty level percentages. Median income was calculated as follows = (lower bound of median interva l) + [[((total weighted N)/2) – (cumulative frequency of groups before the median group)]/(frequency of median group)] *(median group width). The federal poverty guidelines provide income limits below which households are deemed to be in poverty. Colloquia lly referred to as the federal poverty level, the guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and H uman usehold resides in the 48 Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Income limits vary by family size and whether the ho Federal poverty guidelines are not specifically defined for contiguous states (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, or Hawaii. Puerto Rico. For most household sizes, the 2013 guidelines approximate the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds for 2012. For this annualized monthly report, we compared income by household size to the 2013 poverty guidelines found at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds . NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from n onparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program removes double - food programs counting of clients served by both all the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for ms. types of progra Hunger in America 2014 National Report 123

139 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 2 . Households with at least one child by reported monthly income ranges, and monthly Table 4 6 household income as a percentage of the poverty level Type of program All food programs Meal Monthly household income Grocery Income in the past month 12.3% 7.8% $0 7.8% $500 or less 18.8% 12.7% 12.8% 27.5% $1,000 $501 25.8% 26.0% – $1,001 $2,000 22.6% – 32.7% 32.4% 12.2% 12.2% $2,001 – $3,000 9.0% $3,001 $4,000 3.2% – 4.0% 4.0% More than $4,000 6.6% 4.8% 4.8% Total 100% 100% 100% Median monthly income $844 $1,116 $1,106 Weighted nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.1M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.1M 2.0M 2.0M As a percentage of the poverty level 0% (no income) 7.8% 7.8% 12.3% 1% 50% – 23.9% 23.6% 23.6% – 75% 51% 15.2% 8.3% 15.5% – 76% 100% 22.6% 14.9% 15.3% – 130% 101% 12.9% 19.6% 19.4% 131% – 150% 2.7% 3.4% 3.4% 151% – 185% 8.8% 8.7% 8.8% 186% or higher 8.6% 6.5% 6.5% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.1M 0.1M Total weighted N 0.1M 2.0M 2.0M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q22, Q1. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Missing data in household size needed to calculate poverty level may result in some differences between income percentages an d poverty level percentages. Median income was calculated as follows = (lower bound of median interval) + [[((total weighted N)/2) – (cumulative frequency of groups before the median group)]/(frequency of median group)] *(median group width). Colloquially referred to as the s provide income limits below which households are deemed to be in poverty. The federal poverty guideline federal poverty level, the guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and H uman Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Income limits vary by family size and whether the household resides in the 48 contiguous states (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, or Hawaii. Federal poverty guidelines are not specifically defined for Puerto Ric o. For most household sizes, the 2013 guidelines approximate the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds for 2012. For this report, we compared income by household size to the 2013 poverty guidelines found at annualized monthly http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds . NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid sk ips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse fro m nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program removes double - food programs counting of clients served by both the weight for the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all grams. types of pro Hunger in America 2014 National Report 124

140 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 2 . Households with at least one senior by reported monthly income ranges, and Table 4 7 household income as a percentage of the poverty level monthly Type of program All food programs Meal Monthly household income Grocery month Income in the past 10.2% 5.3% $0 5.4% $500 or less 7.9% 7.2% 7.2% 26.2% $1,000 $501 33.0% 32.6% – $1,001 $2,000 33.3% – 33.4% 33.0% $2,001 10.6% 10.5% – $3,000 8.7% $3,001 $4,000 4.6% – 3.5% 3.7% More than $4,000 9.1% 7.2% 7.6% Total 100% 100% 100% Median monthly income $1,173 $1,136 $1,146 Weighted nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.1M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.2M 1.7M 1.7M As a percentage of the poverty level 0% (no income) 5.6% 5.5% 10.5% 1% 50% – 1.9% 7.3% 7.7% – 75% 51% 9.0% 8.2% 9.0% – 76% 100% 3.8% 11.7% 11.2% – 130% 101% 27.9% 25.6% 25.4% 131% – 150% 0.2% 1.4% 1.4% 151% – 185% 8.1% 16.4% 15.8% 186% or higher 39.3% 22.7% 24.2% Total % 100 % 100 % 100 Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.2M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.2M 1.7M 1.7M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q22, Q1. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Missing data in household size needed to calculate poverty level may result in some differences between income percentages an d poverty level percentages. Median income was calculated as follows = (lower bound of median interval) + [[((total weighted N)/2) – (cumulative frequency of groups before the median group)]/(frequency of median group)] *(median group width). Colloquially referred to as the s provide income limits below which households are deemed to be in poverty. The federal poverty guideline federal poverty level, the guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and H uman Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Income limits vary by family size and whether the household resides in the 48 contiguous states (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, or Hawaii. Federal poverty guidelines are not specifically defined for Puerto Ric o. For most household sizes, the 2013 guidelines approximate the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds for 2012. For this report, we compared income by household size to the 2013 poverty guidelines found at annualized monthly http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds . NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid sk ips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse fro m nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program removes double food programs - counting of clients served by both the weight for the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all grams. types of pro Hunger in America 2014 National Report 125

141 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households The federal poverty guidelines are income levels used to determine a household’s eligibility for federal assistance programs such as ) and the SNAP the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( WIC ) , taking into Infants, and Children ( Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, account both income and household size. In 2013, the year in which these data were collected, the federal poverty guideline for a family of four living in the 48 contiguous states or the District of 83 income as a percentage of the poverty level, Columbia was $23 Looking at monthly . ,550 per year across all households and all food program types, 50.7 percent of Feeding America client h ouseholds fall at or below 100 percent of the poverty level. These findings are highly similar for meal an d grocery program client households at least one child , . Among households with 61.9 elow 100 percent of poverty, and among households with at least one senior percent fall at or b the figure is 33.1 percent. This demonstrates the depth o f need among Feeding America clients’ households. The Client Survey also probed annual income by asking respondents to report total household income during the p revious 12 months. In addition to presenting income ranges, we calculate both median annual in come, and annual income as a percentage of the federal poverty guideline - 9, 4 2 - , 4 8 . ) 30 (Tables 4 - 2 program types (Table 4 - 2 8 ), 10.2 percent of client households food Across all households and all lient households, as compared to those report no income in the previous 12 months. Meal program c are statistically significantly more likely to report no income. Households with at grocery programs, (Table 4 at least one child - 2 9 ) and households with at least one senior (Table 4 - 30 ) report less extreme circumstan ces, with 6.3 percent and 4.5 percent respectively reporting no income, and no statistically significant differences across meal and grocery programs. Median annual income across program types is $9,175, and as with monthly income, t all household and food he median is higher at least one senior for households with and households with . According to the at least one child 84 CPS more than five times 017, , in 2012 the median annual income for U.S. households was $51, client households. higher the median income of Feeding America 83 Poverty - level gui delines are higher for Alaska and Hawaii, where cost of living is also higher. - http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm . Puerto Rico does not have federally designated poverty level guidelines, because no participants from Puerto Rico were included in HIA 2014 weighted estimates that include Puerto Rico but were achieved through nonresponse adjustments to the data rather than calculation of poverty levels for individual responses. 84 DeNavas al., “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012.” Walt et - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 126

142 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 2 . All c lient households by reported annual income ranges, and annual household Table 4 8 income as a percentage of the poverty level program of Type All food Annual household programs income Meal Grocery in the past 12 months Income 24.9% 8.6% 10.2% $0 25.2% less 27.1% 25.0% $5,000 or – $10,000 15.0% $5,001 17.9% 17.8% $10,001 – $15,000 17.3% 16.5% 12.8% $15,001 – $20,000 6.1% 11.6% 11.1% $20,001 $25,000 4.6% 8.0% 7.9% – $30,000 3.0% $25,001 4.8% 4.7% – $30,001 $35,000 2.0% – 3.1% 3.1% $35,001 – $50,000 1.8% 2.6% 2.6% More $50,000 2.6% 1.0% 1.2% than Total 100% 100% 100% Median annual income $4,615 $9,532 $9,175 Weighted nonreporting client households 0.3M 1.3M 1.4M 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Total weighted N the of percentage level poverty As a 8.9% 0% income) 25.4% 10.5% (no – 50% 28.0% 31.3% 30.6% 1% 75% 5.9% – 13.5% 13.0% 51% 12.3% – 100% 18.5% 17.9% 76% 101% 130% 3.3% – 11.0% 10.3% 131% – 150% 9.3% 6.2% 6.2% 5.3% 151% – 185% 5.8% 5.7% 186% or higher 10.5% 4.9% 5.7% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 1.4M 1.6M 0.3M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q23 , Q1 . Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Missing data in household size needed to calculate poverty level may result in some differences between income percentages and poverty level percentages. (cumul Median income was calculated as follows = (lower bound of median interval) + [[((total weighted N)/2) – ative frequency of groups before the median group)]/(frequency of median group)] *(median group width). The federal poverty guidelines provide income limits below which households are deemed to be in poverty. Colloquially referred to as the federal poverty level, the guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Income limits vary by family size and whether the household resides in the 48 tates (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, or Hawaii. contiguous s Federal poverty guidelines are not specifically defined for Puerto Rico. For most household sizes, the 2013 guidelines approximate the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds for 2012. For this repo rt, we compared annual income by household size to the 2013 poverty guidelines found at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds . NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse fr om participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents el igible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program removes double all - counting of clients served by both food programs the unduplicat ed count that forms the basis for the weight for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 127

143 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 2 . Client households with at least one child by reported annual income ranges, and Table 4 9 as percentage of the poverty level annual household income a Type of program All food programs Meal income Grocery Annual household in the past 12 months Income 9.6% 6.3% 6.3% $0 or 21.4% 25.1% less 24.8% $5,000 – $10,000 30.8% $5,001 13.9% 13.0% $15,000 14.4% – 14.8% 14.6% $10,001 – $20,000 $15,001 3.6% 13.2% 12.9% $20,001 – $25,000 5.0% 10.4% 10.3% – $30,000 4.4% 7.3% 7.2% $25,001 4.7% $35,000 3.9% 4.7% $30,001 – – $50,000 3.8% 4.0% 4.0% $35,001 3.0% $50,000 More 1.2% 1.2% than 100% 100% Total 100% income $8,085 $11,875 $11,721 Median annual Weighted nonreporting client households 0.3M 0.3M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.1M 2.0M 2.0M percentage As level poverty the of a 6.3% 0% income) 9.6% 6.3% (no – 50% 27.0% 36.7% 36.2% 1% 75% 37.3% – 18.5% 19.1% 51% 7.2% – 100% 15.6% 15.4% 76% 101% 130% 7.9% – 14.4% 14.2% 131% – 150% 1.1% 1.7% 1.7% 4.3% 151% – 185% 3.9% 4.0% 3.0% 186% or higher 5.6% 2.9% 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting client households 0.3M 0.3M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.1M 2.0M 2.0M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q23 , Q1 . Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Missing data in household size needed to calculate poverty level may result in some differences between income percentages an d poverty level percentag es. Median income was calculated as follows = (lower bound of median interval) + [[((total weighted N)/2) – (cumulative frequency of groups before the median group)]/(frequency of median group)] *(median group width). Colloquially referred to as the The federal poverty guidelines provide income limits below which households are deemed to be in poverty. federal poverty level, the guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and H uman Services under the authorit y of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Income limits vary by family size and whether the household resides in the 48 contiguous states (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, or Hawaii. Federal poverty guidelines are not specifically defined for Puerto Rico. For mo st household sizes, the 2013 guidelines approximate the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds for 2012. For this report, we compared annual income by household size to the 2013 poverty guidelines found at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds . NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey ite m skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating fo od banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program Meal - counting of clients served by both the weight for all food programs removes double the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 128

144 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households - 30 C lient households with at least one senior by reported annual income ranges, and Table 4 . household income a p ercentage of the poverty level annual as Type of program All food programs Meal income Grocery Annual household in the past 12 months Income 7.9% 4.5% 4.5% $0 or 26.0% 21.0% less 20.8% $5,000 – $10,000 14.7% $5,001 20.5% 20.5% $15,000 24.3% – 22.3% 22.0% $10,001 – $20,000 $15,001 8.8% 13.2% 13.0% $20,001 – $25,000 5.3% 9.2% 9.2% – $30,000 4.2% 3.7% 3.8% $25,001 2.9% $35,000 2.1% 2.9% $30,001 – – $50,000 2.6% 2.1% 2.2% $35,001 $50,000 More 4.1% 0.7% 1.1% than 100% 100% Total 100% $10,300 $10,920 $10,955 Median annual income Weighted nonreporting client households 0.3M 0.4M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.2M 1.7M 1.7M of percentage a level poverty As the 4.7% 0% income) 8.1% 4.7% (no – 50% 26.7% 24.8% 24.5% 1% 75% 4.4% – 11.9% 11.5% 51% 14.6% – 100% 23.2% 23.1% 76% 101% 130% 5.5% – 11.6% 11.2% 131% – 150% 19.1% 10.2% 10.3% 6.6% 151% – 185% 8.2% 8.2% 6.6% 186% or higher 14.8% 5.4% 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting client households 0.4M 0.4M 0.0M Total weighted N 0.2M 1.7M 1.7M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q23 , Q1 . Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Missing data in household size needed to calculate poverty level may result in some differences between income percentages and poverty level percentages. (cumul – Median income was calculated as follows = (lower bound of median interval) + [[((total weighted N)/2) ative frequency of groups before the median group)]/(frequency of median group)] *(median group width). The federal poverty guidelines provide income limits below which households are deemed to be in poverty. Colloquially referred to as the federal poverty level, the guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). Income limits vary by family size and whether the household resides in the 48 tates (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, or Hawaii. contiguous s Federal poverty guidelines are not specifically defined for Puerto Rico. For most household sizes, the 2013 guidelines approximate the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds for 2012. For this report, we compared annual income by household size to the 2013 poverty guidelines found at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm#thresholds . NOTE: All data were weighted as des cribed in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligi ble to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. numbers because Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program the weight for counting of clients served by both all food programs removes double - the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 129

145 4 Characteristics of Feeding America Clients and Their Households Looking at annual income as a percentage of the poverty level, across all households and all program percent of the poverty ouseholds fall at or below 100 s, 72.0 percent of Feeding America client h type are level. These findings almost identical for meal and grocery programs. Among households with at least one child percent o f poverty, and among households with at elow 100 , 77.0 percent fall at or b least one senior the figure is 63.8 percent. Feeding America Reviewing client households’ income as a percentage of the poverty level is also federal nutrition assistance relevant when considering a household’s potential income eligibility for programs, such as SNAP and WIC. Although eligibility for federal nutrition assistance programs is contingent on a variety of criteria not included here, including household size, assets, and citizenship can provide a directional indicator of a household’s potential program status, household income eligibility. Across all food programs, both meal and grocery, and all household types, 82.3 percent of households fall at or below 130 percent of the poverty level, which is the federa l income guideline for SNAP eligibility. Additionally, 11.9 percent of households fall between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level. Although these households may be ineligible for SNAP, they may be eligible for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) , School Breakfast Program (SBP), and WIC (if there are children or pregnant women in the household), or the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). While 5.7 percent of households report incomes at 186 percent or above the poverty guideline, and thus a re likely ineligible for federal assistance programs, it is important to note that these households are still frequenting charitable food programs. A household may have income rogram support, and/or assets that place them just above the eligibility threshold for federal p These leaving the charitable sector as one of the few sources of food assistance that they receive. income distributions even by households demonstrate that charitable food assistance is utilized . s e threshold exceed the federal poverty lin whose incomes Hunger in America 2014 National Report 130

146 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance Key Findings  Across all client households, 84 percent are food insecure. In households with at least one child that number rises to 89 percent. Client households report making spending tradeoffs between paying for food and  paying for other necessities, such as medical care, housing, and utilities. Sixty - six percent of households report choosing between paying for food and medicine or medical care each year, and 31 percent do so every month. Fifty - seven percent of households choose between paying for food and housing annually, with 27 percent doing so on a monthly basis.  Sixty - three percent of households plan for charitable food assistance as a part of their monthly household budg et.  More than half (55 percent) of client households receive monthly benefits from the Almost half of those not federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). because they d commonly id not receiving SNAP benefits have never applied , most - two percent of households not receiving SNAP hey were eligible. Seventy think t may in fact be income eligible benefits for SNAP.  Clients and their households often utilize multiple coping strategies to ensure they have enough food. More than 50 percent receive he lp from family or friends; 79 percent purchase inexpensive, unhealthy food; 40 percent water down food and drinks to make them last longer; and 23 percent grow food in a garden. Fifty - five percent of households report employing three or more coping strateg ies to get enough food each year. In this chapter we focus on the use of food assistance by Feeding America clients. We begin by examining food security among Feeding America client households, and the difficult choices these households face in paying for food or paying for other necessities. We describe client households’ use of federal and charitable nutrition programs, and the coping strategies clients use to secure enough food for themselves and their households. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 131

147 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ hold 5.1 Securing Enough Food for the House The use of food programs and difficulty getting enough food to feed one’s household are likely deeply intertwined. Households that experience limitations in access to adequate food to the extent 85 that it causes changes in diet or reduced food intake ar According to the e deemed food insecure. or 14.5 percent of U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.6 million U.S. households were food insecure 86 7.8 million households with children. in 2012, including In this section, we examine challenges Feeding America cl ient households face in providing food for household members, including the level of food insecurity of client households, the tradeoffs they make to secure enough food, and the role charitable food assistance plays in their monthly plan to secure food. .1 Household Food Security Status 5.1 Documenting the extent of household food insecurity through surveys is an important part of understanding the issue of hunger. In survey research that covers a range of topics, however, the detailed measures of food sec urity may present too much burden for respondents. In the Client Survey, we employed the 6 - item food security module designed by the Economic Research Service 87 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This brief survey module has the advantage of reducing th e burden on respondents and although it is broadly comparable to the longer 18 - item module , it is somewhat less precise. The 6 - item module permits categorization of households as food secure or food . Households that are insecure enough food for a healthy, active to all times at have access food secure lifestyle ; food insecure have limited or uncertain access to adequate food due to a households that are lack of money or other resources. 5 - Many client households report struggling with food security in the past 12 months (Table ). 1 Looking at all households and all food program types, 83.8 classify as food insecure . Food insecurity is highest in households with at least one child , affecting 88.8 percent of those households. The lowest rate of food insecurity is among households with , yet still 76.2 percent of at least one senior client households with seniors are food insecure. Among all client households, as well as households 85 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food - nutrition - - assistance/food security - in - the - us/definitions - of - food - security.aspx 86 Coleman - Jensen et al., “Household Food Security in the United States in 2012.” 87 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service . http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food - nutrition - in - tools.aspx#six security - us/survey - the - assistance/food - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 132

148 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ and households with no children or seniors, with seniors grocery program client households are 88 more likely than meal program client households to be food insecure — significantly statistically percent of grocery program client households are food insecure, compared 85.3 to 75.8 percent of . Overall, it is apparent that many households served by the Feeding meal program client households America network struggle to find sufficient nutritious foods. 5 - 1 . Client households by Table food security level of Type of program All food Food security Meal Grocery programs All households Food Secure 24.2% 14.7% 16.2% Food 75.8% 85.3% 83.8% Insecure 100% 100% Total 100% Weighted households 0.2M nonreporting 0.7M 0.8M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Households with at least one child Food Secure 15.9% 10.9% 11.2% 88.8% Food Insecure 84.1% 89.1% Households with at least one senior Secure Food 23.8% 21.6% 38.6% Food 61.4% 78.4% 76.2% Insecure with at least one child and one senior Households 13.1% 20.7% Secure 13.3% Food Insecure 79.3% 87.0% Food 86.7% Households with no children or seniors Food Secure 21.0% 12.0% 13.9% 86.1% Food Insecure 79.0% 88.0% Q40. and Data Q39, Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q37A, Q37B, Q38, Q38A, Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting client s include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary do not sum to all food program program numbers numbers because tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery all counting of clients served by both - the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for removes double food programs types of programs. are a variety of reasons why some of Although most client households are food insecure, there Feeding America’s client households may identify as food secure. Respondents may take into account the food they receive through the charitable food system or federal programs like SNAP ions on the food security module. This could indicate that their when they are answering the quest food secure status is contingent on the help they receive. Additionally, households may make 88 istical significance in the HIA 2014 report is calculated based on a 90 percent confidence interval. All stat Hunger in America 2014 National Report 133

149 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance his tradeoffs to ensure that they have enough food on the table, as discussed in the next section of t report. Furthermore, HIA 2014 includes non emergency programs in its scope, thus capturing - clients who are in need but may not classify as food insecure. A food secure status does not indicate a lack of need for charitable feeding support. for Other 5.1 .2 Making Difficult Decisions about Buying Food vs. Paying Necessities We can learn more about the challenges faced by Feeding America clients by looking at the for decisions their households make when confronting choices between paying for food and pay ing other essentials . These dilemmas can put households in the position of choosing between competing necessities. having to choose between ty of client households report Across all food program types, the majori paying for food and paying for medical care (65.9 percent), utilities (69.3 percent), housing (57.1 ). percent), or transportation (66.5 percent) at some point in the past 12 months (Table 5 - 2 Households making these tradeoffs most often report doing so every month. Households make en food and educational expenses least frequently, perhaps because not all households choices betwe choosing between have contain students, although 30.5 percent of households still found themselves iting food and education in the past 12 months. The households of clients vis seem to meal program s this may be although , s grocery program those at be making these hard choices less often than because reduce the need for individual choices between thus some meal programs are residential and food and competing necessities. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 134

150 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ ble 5 2 . Client households reporting frequency of choosing between food and other Ta - nec essities in the past 12 months program of Type All food How often in the past 12 months, did you or your programs have household choose between... Meal Grocery to care Paying for food and paying for medicine/medical 52.8% 67.8% Ever 65.9% Every month 21.5% 31.8% 30.8% 23.8% during the year 19.8% Some 23.3% months year 2 times a 1 11.5% 12.2% 11.8% or 34.2% Never 47.2% 32.3% Total 100% 100% 100% nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.2M 0.2M Weighted 1.1M 5.8M 5.4M Total weighted N Paying for food and paying for utilities Ever 51.1% 71.7% 69.3% Every month 23.3% 34.7% 33.6% Some during the year months 17.8% 24.6% 23.8% 1 or 2 times a year 10.0% 12.4% 11.9% 30.7% Never 48.9% 28.3% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.4M 0.5M 0.1M 5.4M 5.8M Total weighted N 1.1M for food and paying for housing Paying 58.8% 57.1% 46.6% Ever 23.1% 27.9% Every 27.2% month Some months during the year 13.9% 20.0% 19.5% 1 or 2 times a year 9.6% 10.9% 10.4% Never 53.4% 41.3% 42.8% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.4M 0.4M 0.1M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Paying for food and paying for transportation Ever 47.6% 68.7% 66.5% Every month 23.8% 35.3% 34.1% during Some months the year 15.1% 22.6% 21.9% 1 or 2 times a year 8.7% 10.8% 10.5% Never 52.4% 31.2% 33.5% 100% 100% 100% Total 0.4M client households 0.4M 0.1M Weighted nonreporting 5.8M 5.4M Total weighted N 1.1M Hunger in America 2014 National Report 135

151 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ 2 5 Client households reporting frequency of choosing between food and other - Table . essities in the past 12 months (continued) nec Type of program How often in the past 12 months, did you or your All food have to choose household between... programs Meal Grocery Paying for food and paying for education expenses 30.5% Ever 22.0% 31.7% Every month 9.3% 14.8% 14.1% months Some 7.0% during the year 10.3% 10.1% 6.3% 1 or 2 times a year 5.7% 6.6% 69.5% 68.3% 77.9% Never 100% 100% 100% Total Weighted nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.4M 0.5M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M and Q29. Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q25, Q26, Q27, Q28, Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting c lients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total wei ghted N reflects the weighted number across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary do not numbers because sum to all food program tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers - counting of clients served by both removes double the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all food programs types of programs. et Needing to Plan for Food Assistance to Meet a Monthly Budg 5.1 .3 Although charitable food assistance is often seen as an emergency resource, many clients who have persistent difficulty securing food for their households plan to incorporate charitable assistance into their overall monthly strategy for obtaining food. A lthough some clients report seeking assistance on plan for charitable food assistance as an the majority an emergency basis if or when food runs out, ). 3 element of their monthly household budgets - 5 (Table Hunger in America 2014 National Report 136

152 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ 5 - Client households reporting differen t strategies for food assistance Table 3. Type of program All food programs Meal Grocery Planned use of programs households All usually wait to come until I run out of I food 38.5% 36.8% 36.8% I plan to get food here on a regular basis 61.5% 63.2% 63.2% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.3M 0.9M 1.0M Total weighted N 5.4M 5.8M 1.1M at least one child Households with usually wait to come until I run out of food 46.5% 42.9% 43.0% I I plan to get food here on a regular basis 53.5% 57.1% 57.0% Households with at least one senior I usually wait to come until I run out of food 23.9% 24.2% 24.3% 75.8% 76.1% basis regular 75.7% I plan to get food here on a Households at least one child and one senior with usually wait to come until I run out of food 30.6% 29.2% 29.2% I plan to get food here on a I regular basis 69.4% 70.8% 70.8% children Households with no or seniors I usually wait to come until I run out of food 42.3% 40.2% 40.6% 59.8% 57.7% 59.4% I basis plan to get food here on a regular Survey, Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Data Q41. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to acc ount for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but program numbers do not sum to all food program program numbers numbers because tables because of valid skips. Meal and grocery removes double the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all food p rograms the weight for - counting of clients served by both types of programs. Across all households, 63.2 percent of households plan to get food at meal or grocery programs on a regular basis to help with their monthly food budget. For such households , cha ritable food assistance is not just a safety net, but an integral part of planning for monthly food. Households with at least one senior are statistically significantly more likely, in comparison to all households, to plan ent planning visits on a regular basis rather than waiting with 75.7 perc food for to for program visits out. run 5.2 Client Households’ Use of Other Food Assistance may also get network Feeding America through the Households receiving charitable food assistance rition programs. Survey respondents were asked about household assistance from other nut participation in the largest federal food assistance programs, including SNAP and the Special Hunger in America 2014 National Report 137

153 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance e in Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants , and Children (WI C). Additionally, thos priced school lunch - households with children were asked about participation in the free and reduced and school breakfast programs, afterschool snack and meal programs, and BackPack weekend food to - - programs that provide children with nutritious and easy pre pare food for weekend consumption. Eligible households receive their monthly SNAP is the largest federal nutrition assistance program. While some of the eligibility and SNAP benefit allotment on an electronic benefits (EBT) card. by state, eligibility is generally limited to households with gross income below participation rules vary 89 130 percent of the poverty line ($ 23,550 for a family of four in 201 3 ). In some states, eligible households must pass an asset test, with financial assets limited to $2,000 f or nonelderly households and $3,250 for elderly and disabled households. SNAP benefit amounts are based on the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), and families with no net income after allowable deductions receive the maximum allotment, the full cost of the TFP for t heir household size. Most SNAP households have income and receive a benefit equal to the difference between the maximum allotment and 30 percent of 90 their net income. gnant and food assistance programs focus on households with pre Other large federal and charitable 91 income pregnant and partum women and children. - post - WIC provides supplemental foods for low post - partum women and children up to age five who are at nutritional risk. WIC eligibility restricts of the federal poverty guidelines (states may use benefits to families with incomes below 185 percent Low - income households with children may also qualify for a free or lower income cut offs). - price lunch through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or a free or reduced reduced 92 gh the School Breakfast Program (SBP), both federal programs . price breakfast throu Afterschool snacks and meals, as well as summer meals, are reimbursable through federal programs, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), respectively; 89 Most states, including 43 in 2013, use SNAP’s optional Broad - Based Categorical Eligibility rules. These rules confer SNAP eligibility to those receiving a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - funded non - cash service such as a brochure about assistance programs. These states typically apply a gross income eligibility limit that ranges between 130 and 200 percent of the federal poverty guideline. abeth Laird and Carole Trippe, (February 2014). See Eliz “Programs Conferring Categorical Eligibility for SNAP: State Policies and the Number and Characteristics of Households Affected.” Final Report to the USDA. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. 90 See www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility#Deductions ? for details on deductions. 91 The federal government offers additional, smaller, nutrition programs. See and www.fns.usda.gov/programs - - services for a full listing. 92 Families with incomes below 13 0 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for a free lunch or breakfast and families price lunch or breakfast. See with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the p overty level qualify for a reduced - www.fns.usda.gov/school . guidelines - eligibility - meals/income - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 138

154 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance however, in many cases these programs are offered though charitable agencies apart from the federal 93 ome schools programs. S hese programs for households that qualify. and partner agencies offer t 5.2.1 Client Households’ Use of SNAP currently receiving SNAP Just over half (54.8 percent) o f all client households report that they are , both meal and grocery, ). Across all food programs 4 - benefits (Table 5 receipt is statistically significantly higher for households with (58.9 percent), and lower for households at least one child with at least one senior (46.6 percent) as compared to all households . Reports of SNAP benefit receipt are similar overall for clients of meal and grocery programs. Receipt of SNAP benefits is vels of SNAP receipt by Feeding America client often underreported, however, so actual le 94 households may be higher. Among all client households not currently rece iving SNAP, almost half report that they had never 4 applied for SNAP benefits (Table 5 - stically ). Households with at least one senior are stati significantly more likely than other households to report never having applied (28.8 percent o f at least one senior receiving meal program help are with seniors households ), and households with never applied for SNAP (34.1 percent of households). This is ve most likely to say that they ha consistent with the literature indicating that seniors more often avoid SNAP, often because of lack 95 , 96 of program knowledge, stigma, a desire for privacy , or a decline in income volatility . 93 CACFP is a federally - funded program adminis tered by eligible s tates that includes at - risk afterschool care programs. SFSP is federally funded and provides free summer meals to children at approved sites located where there are substantial concentrations of low - income children. For more information on both, visit www.fns.usda.gov . 94 nder ousehold H R Bruce D. Meyer, Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan . (2009). “ The U ransfers in - T eporting of .” S I ts N ature and C onsequences urveys: NBER Working Paper No. 15181. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 95 See Steven Haider, Alison Jacknowitz, and Robert Schoeni. (2003). “Food Stamps and the Elderl y: Why is Participation So Low? Journal of Human Resources , 38 (Suppl.): 1080 - 1111. ” 96 “The Age Gradient in Food Stamp Program Participation: Does Income Craig Gundersen, and J. Ziliak. (2008). Edited by D. Jolliffe and J. 216. in the United States, 171 - Volatility Matter?” Income Volatility and Food Assistance ployment Research. e for Em W.E. Upjohn Institut iak. Kalamazoo, MI: Zil Hunger in America 2014 National Report 139

155 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ ble 5 4 . Client households by reported current receipt of SNAP benefits, and among those Ta - not currently receiving benefits, whether or not they have applied Type of program All food programs Meal Grocery Current receipt of SNAP and whether applied All households Receiving SNAP 55.1% 54.8% 57.8% Not receiving SNAP 42.2% 44.9% 45.2% Never applied 19.9% 20.1% 20.4% Have applied 20.5% 23.5% 23.4% 1.3% Unknown 1.8% 1.3% Total 100% 100% 100% Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.6M 0.7M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M Households with at least one child 63.8% Receiving SNAP 59.1% 58.9% Not receiving SNAP 40.9% 41.1% 36.2% Never applied 9.2% 15.6% 15.5% Have applied 26.7% 24.6% 24.9% Unknown 0.3% 0.7% 0.7% one senior Households with at least 46.6% Receiving SNAP 46.6% 47.2% Not receiving SNAP 52.8% 53.4% 53.4% 27.6% 28.8% Never applied 34.1% 14.7% 23.4% 22.9% Have applied Unknown 1.7% 1.7% 4.6% with at least one child and one senior Households Receiving SNAP 69.9% 47.8% 47.9% Not receiving SNAP 52.2% 52.1% 30.1% Never applied 15.0% 23.5% 23.5% Have applied 11.5% 27.2% 27.1% Unknown 3.6% 1.5% 1.5% Households with no children or seniors 57.4% 57.9% 60.5% Receiving SNAP Not receiving SNAP 42.1% 42.6% 39.5% Never applied 15.1% 17.1% 17.3% Have applied 23.2% 23.7% 24.0% Unknown 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% Data Hunger Source: in America 2014 Client Survey, Q30, and Q31. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estima tes are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It in cludes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across and grocery tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because food programs th e weight for all removes double - counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 140

156 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance 5.2.1.1 Exhaustion of SNAP Benefits By definition, SNAP benefits are intended to supplement a household’s monthly grocery budget, SNAP benefits typically do not last recipients the entire month. Across all - 5 reveals th at and Table 5 households and food programs, 21.1 percent report that these benefits only last one wee k or less, , and 33.9 percent report benef two weeks for three its last 31.3 percent report that benefits last four weeks or more. Clients weeks. A t hat SNAP benefits usually last minority (13.6 percent) report of meal programs are statistically significantly more likely than clients of grocery programs to report that SN AP benefits last for four weeks or longer (25.1 percent compared with 12.7 percent), and the two weeks for those in grocery programs, but three weeks median number of weeks benefits last is for those in meal programs. This may reflect the difference in food preparation pa tterns between these groups. Grocery clients typically prepare meals at home and use SNAP benefits to purchase , but meal - program clients may prepare food at home less often since they are they make the food . on site at a program meals receiving th e time that SNAP benefits last are similar across household types, except that Reports of at least one senior are households with statistically significantly more likely than other households to report that benefits last one week or less . In contrast to other hous ehold types, households with at numbers of weeks that benefits least one senior using meal programs also have a lower median two weeks in comparison to three weeks for meal programs. other household types that use — last These finding are consistent with fed eral reports indicating that households with seniors do not typically receive the maximum benefit and that their lower monthly SNAP allocation may be due in average household size: 81 percent of SNAP households with seniors, large part to a smaller - than - 97 cording to the latest federal study, consisted of a senior living alone. , It should be noted ac that differences in the duration of SNAP benefits may also be attributable to however, individual food preparation and spending patterns, irrespective s’ charitable food of benefit size and household program type. 97 (February 2014.) “ Characteristics of Supplemental U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. - .” Table 3 Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012 3, February 2014. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf Hunger in America 2014 National Report 141

157 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - 5 Client households by reported usual time to exhaustion of SNAP benefits, among Table 5 . households receiving SNAP benefits of Type program All food programs Meal Grocery Time to exhaustion of benefits households All week or less 14.9% 21.8% 21.1% 1 weeks 29.0% 31.7% 2 31.3% 3 weeks 31.0% 33.9% 33.9% 16.0% 9.3% 9.9% 4 weeks than 4 weeks 9.1% 3.4% More 3.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 3 2 2 Median number of weeks Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.7M 0.7M Total weighted N 3.1M 3.2M 0.6M at least one child Households with week or less 18.1% 16.8% 16.7% 1 2 26.8% 33.0% 32.9% weeks 3 weeks 38.9% 39.1% 39.2% 4 weeks 9.9% 8.4% 8.5% 2.7% More 4 weeks 6.3% 2.6% than Median number of weeks 3 2 2 Households with at least one senior 29.1% 1 week or less 21.4% 29.6% 2 weeks 33.9% 28.4% 28.4% weeks 3 27.6% 27.3% 27.6% 4 11.8% 10.7% 10.9% weeks than 4 weeks 5.3% 3.9% 4.0% More 2 2 2 Median number of weeks with at least one child and one senior Households week or less 2.7% 18.2% 18.3% 1 2 25.8% 32.1% 32.2% weeks 3 weeks 56.2% 37.3% 37.3% 4 weeks 13.3% 8.9% 8.8% More than 4 weeks 2.0% 3.4% 3.4% Median number of weeks 3 2 2 children seniors or Households with no 11.8% 1 or less week 20.7% 19.4% 2 weeks 26.1% 33.3% 31.8% 3 weeks 32.8% 33.2% 33.8% 4 weeks 18.3% 9.0% 10.5% 4.4% More than 4 weeks 11.0% 3.8% Median number of weeks 3 2 2 Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q30 and Q30A. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under non reporting clients include missing data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients . Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across program numb tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery ers do not sum to all food program numbers because removes double the weight for counting of clients served by both - all food programs the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 142

158 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance 5.2.1.2 Reasons Why Clients Do Not Receive SNAP Feeding America can be many reasons why nearly half of clients do not receive SNAP There benefits. They may not have applied because they do not know about the program or perhaps know about the program but not pass the do but do not think they were eligible. Others may apply fail to complete the full application process. SNAP limits eligibility eligibility screens, and others may to households with incomes below certain limits, specific eligibility requirements may - and other state icipation rates. For instance, in some states households must pass an affect SNAP eligibility and part test asset . Also, SNAP benefits are not available to documented immigrants in the country for fewer than five years (unless the applicant is a child under age 18 or a person with a disab ility), and all time limit may - A apply to receipt of SNAP for able also undocumented immigrants are excluded. bodied adults without dependents who are not working, or in work programs that limit benefits to three months out of restriction was lifted in many states, however, during year period. This - three a 98 Individuals also may not apply or qualify for SNAP benefits 2013 because of high unemployment. for other reasons related to specific eligibility criteria not previously mentioned. Finally, as noted in reported by survey respondents and this - Section 5.2.1, participation in SNAP is often under phenomenon may affect this survey as well, resulting in a lower reported SNAP participation rate 99 than actually exists in the population. not participating in SNAP may or may not be eligible for SNAP benefits. The client households Nonetheless, reported household cash income provides some indication of SNAP eligibility among ide nonparticipating households, and reasons for nonparticipation given among this group prov additional insight. When asked about the reasons they and their household members ha ve never applied for SNAP, eligible for benefits (Table 5 clients most often report that they do not think they are ). Relat - 6 ively n few (6.3 percent) report they have ever heard of SNAP ; this percentage was likely influenced by the fact that their state - specific SNAP EBT card image was presented in the Client Survey, making too hard to apply for benefits is . recognition of the benefit easier. O nly 8.1 percent say that it 98 for the current status of state waivers See www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP/able - bodied - adults - t - dependents - abawds ? withou due to high unemployment. 99 ousehold Bruce D. Meyer, Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan . (2009). “ The nder - R eporting of T ransfers in H U onsequences .” NBER Working Paper al Bureau of No. 15181. Cambridge, MA: Nation S urveys: I ts N ature and C Economic Research. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 143

159 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - 6 Client households reporting select reasons for not applying for SNAP benefits, Table 5 . among households that have never applied Type of program All food applied not Meal Grocery Reasons have programs households All think eligible Did not 48.1% 52.5% 52.1% of program 4.3% 6.4% 6.3% heard Never 16.8% reasons 14.6% Personal 14.9% hard to apply Too 8.3% 8.1% 4.7% Another reason 32.7% 27.6% 28.4% nonreporting client households 0.1M 0.5M 0.5M Weighted 0.2M 1.1M 1.2M Total weighted N with at least one child Households think eligible Did not 51.8% 52.1% 64.2% Never heard of program 1.1% 7.7% 7.5% Personal reasons 17.4% 17.1% 17.0% to hard 10.5% 10.6% 5.8% apply Too Another 13.5% 23.7% 23.5% reason with at least one senior Households eligible 53.8% think 56.0% 55.0% Did not of heard 3.5% program Never 4.6% 4.6% Personal reasons 13.6% 12.4% 12.3% Too to apply 1.1% 8.1% 7.4% hard 26.7% Another reason 32.7% 28.3% Q31 Data Q31A. and Survey, Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Respondents could mark more than one reason, thus responses may sum to more than 100%. All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which NOTE: exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for pr ogram and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes v alid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because - the unduplicated count that forms the basis for oves double counting of clients served by both rem the weight for all food programs types of programs. - Over one third of client households that report having applied for SNAP benefits report not qualifying at some point. Among those that report not qualifying for SNAP benefits , the most 7 ). A small percentage of client - comm on reason given was that their income was too high (Table 5 . The their assets were too high households reported that either or the application was too difficult as the main reason for not qualifying percentage of client households that report citizenship status for SNAP benefits is also small; however, it is possible that citizenship was underreported given that citizenship is a potentially sensitive topic. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 144

160 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ 7 - Client households reporting not having qualified for SN AP benefits at some point, . Table 5 among households that have ever applied, and main reason for not qualifying Type of program All food programs Meal Grocery All households 29.3% 37.2% Did not qualify for SNAP in the past 36.3% Main reason for not qualifying Application too difficult 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% Assets high 2.7% 4.5% 4.4% too Income high 10.4% too 15.8% 15.4% Not a U.S. citizen 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% Another reason 10.9% 11.0% 10.9% Unknown 3.4% 3.3% 3.2% client households nonreporting 0.7M 0.6M 0.1M Weighted 0.9M 4.3M 4.6M Total weighted N Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client and Survey, Q32 Data Q32A. Reasons sum to percent that did not qualify. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participat ing clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to ans wer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numbers because food programs all forms the basis for counting of clients served by both - the weight for removes double the unduplicated count that types of programs. Many client households’ perceptions and experiences indicate that they do not think they are eligible for SNAP (among those that nev er applied) or that t heir income disqualifies them (among those that had applied but did not receive SNAP). Self - reported incomes of households not receiving SNAP, however, indicate that 7 2.0 percent could be income eligible for SNAP (Table 5 - 8). Most repo rt current incomes below 130 percent of the federal poverty level. In addition to having gross income at or below 130 percent of the poverty level, SNAP applicants must demonstrate that their net income, which is their gross income minus any allowable dedu ctions, is equal to or less than 100 percent of the poverty level to qualify for benefits. Client households that indicate not having qualified for SNAP benefits at some point due to their income being too high may have met the gross income eligibility req uirements but not the net income component of the income test. of client households that have incomes above 130 percent of poverty Notably, a smaller percentage income still be potentially eligible for SNAP, because their incomes may below the higher are Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) for certain - eligibility level set by their states under Broad households. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 145

161 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance Table 5 - 8 . Client households by potential income eligibility for SNAP benefits, among households not receiving SNAP benefits Type of program l household All food vel of potentia Le income eligibility programs Meal Grocery % Potentially income eligible 61.1 % 73.0 % 72.0 level Income at or below 130% of poverty 56.5% 62.1% 61.7% from >130% Income specific to state - BBCE level 4.6 % 10.9 % 10.3 % % Not eligible 38.9 % 27.0 % 28.0 Total 100% 100% 100% 0.3M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.0M 0.3M Total weighted N 0.5M 2.3M 2.5M Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q23 and Q23. , set income - but below a higher state households with incomes above 130% of poverty Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) makes - Broad threshold, categorically eligible for SNAP under some conditions. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number skips. Total weighted N can vary across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid program numbers tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery numbers because do not sum to all food program counting of clients served by both all food programs removes double - the weight for the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Gaps in receipt of SNAP benefits present another factor that can increase the need for private food assistance. SNAP requires households to reapply for benefits on a regular basis, and to be evaluated for continued eligibility at that time. Among client households that either currently receive SNAP or that SNAP benefits had been that applied but are not currently recei ving SNAP, 29.9 percent report stopped at some time (Table 5 of those households report ). Just 9 that they missed the - under a third their income had become too high for eligibility. ine, and nearly as many report recertification deadl Hunger in America 2014 National Report 146

162 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - . Client households reporting SNAP benefits stopping, among households that have 9 Table 5 ever applied, and main reason for benefits stopping program of Type All food benefits SNAP Reasons stopped programs Meal Grocery All households SNAP benefits stopped in the past 29.9% 29.9% 32.5% Main reason SNAP benefits stopped the ran out or you missed recertification deadline 12.3% Time 9.6% 9.8% Your income was too high 6.4% 8.8% 8.6% 10.4% Some other reason 12.6% 10.4% 1.0% 1.2% Unknown 1.0% nonreporting client households Weighted 0.2M 0.7M 0.8M 4.6M 4.3M Total weighted N 0.9M and Q33A. Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q33 Reasons sum to percent that had benefits stopped. Numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which ng data exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi hted to account for program and client sampling as well as due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weig number survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missi ng data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across program numbers tables because of valid skips. Meal numbers because and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program food programs removes double counting of clients served by both - the unduplicated count that forms the basis for the weight for all types of programs. 5.2.2 Receipt of Nutrition Assistance Focused on Children , WIC provides WIC benefits (Table 5 - 10 ). As described previously Some client households receive income pregnant and postpartum women and supplemental food and nutrition education to low - children up to age five who are at risk nutritionally. Because the survey did not ask about the presence of pregnant women or nutrition risk it is not possible to determine the e ligibility rate within client households. Nonetheless, among client households with children under the age of 18 , nearly one receiving WIC services. quarter report - Hunger in America 2014 National Report 147

163 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - . Client households by reported current receipt of WIC benefits 10 Table 5 program of Type All food compo Household programs Meal Grocery sition All households 5.1% 12.1% 11.5% 24.4% 23.4% Households with at least one child 24.7% 4.7% at least one senior 1.3% with 4.9% Households Households with at least one child and one senior 11.0% 13.8% 13.8% Households with no children or seniors 4.5% 5.0% 5.1% 0.8M Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.7M 5.8M 5.4M 1.1M Total weighted N 2014 Data Hunger in America Source: Client Survey, Q34. Nutrition Program for Women, Infants Pregnant women without children in the , and Children. WIC is the federal Special Supplemental household are also eligible for WIC. Because WIC serves children only to age five, some households with at least one child ma y not contain eligible children. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighte d number of respondents eligible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across tables because of valid skips. Meal program numbers and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program numb ers because counting of clients served by both - removes double food programs the unduplicated count that forms the basis for all the weight for types of programs. Some client households also benefit from other federal and charitable nutrition programs targ eted at school - aged children (Table 5 - 11). In this report, we consider school - aged children to be children ages 5 - 18. This particular age group was selected as an approximation for school - aged children that would be age - s, but there may be slight variation in eligibility eligible for child nutrition program given receipt by some younger children, such as preschoolers. Most (93.7 percent) client households wi - aged children report receipt of free or reduced - price school lunch ben efits, and th school 46.2 percen t report receipt of free or reduced - price school breakfast benefits. As noted earlier, breakfast is not available in all schools, and some families may prefer to feed their children at home, which may account for the lower rate of participation in school b reakfast programs. Households aged significantly more likely than those in school - children in the meal programs are statistically with grocery programs to report receipt of school breakfast benefits. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 148

164 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - 11. participation in programs targeted at children other than WIC , Client household Table 5 aged children - among households with school Type of program All food participates Household programs Meal Grocery in... Afterschool snack or meal programs 10.1% 8.2% 8.1% 10.1% BackPack food programs weekend 8.0% 8.0% Free or reduced - price school breakfast programs 65.1% 45.3% 46.2% lunch Free or reduced - price school programs 95.2% 93.6% 93.7% 0.8M 0.1M client households nonreporting 0.8M Weighted Total weighted N 1.4M 1.4M 0.1M 2014 Hunger Data America Source: Client Survey, Q35. in WIC is the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants , and Children. Free or reduced price school breakfast and school lunch programs are fully federally reimbursed. Afterschool snack or meal programs - are eligible for reimbursement but may not be reimbursed. BackPack programs are not eligible for federal reimbursement. School - aged children are children ages 5 - 18. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participating clients. All estim ates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number ncludes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across of respondents eligible to answer the question. It i and grocery program numbers numbers because do not sum to all food program program numbers tables because of valid skips. Meal the weight for all food programs removes double - counting of clients served by both the unduplicated count that forms the basis for types of programs. Some children receive afterschool snack or meal programs (8.1 percent), and some participate in BackPack weekend food programs (8.0 percent) which are ch aritable programs and not federally Because . Low rates of participation likely reflect lower availability of these programs. funded multiple programs, both federal and charitable, may be available to families some families may rely itable programs to address child nutrition needs. on both federal and char 5.3 Households’ Engagement in Coping Strategies engage in various coping strategies may When faced with the threat of food insecurity, individuals ces to extreme changes. Coping strategies are that range from relatively small changes in eating practi active and immediate responses to avoid hunger and its consequences. They are not, however, In Section 5.1.3 we always successful, and/or may result in unintended negative health effects. discussed the spending tradeoffs that Feeding America client households report making between This section of the report discusses food and other necessities as one type of coping strategy. Feeding America client households. employed by coping strategies additional Hunger in America 2014 National Report 149

165 5 Clients Households’ Use of Food Assistance 5.3.1 Copi ng Strategies to Get Enough Food 12). Across all - engaging in a range of coping strategies (Table 5 Client households report , the purchase of inexpensive, unhealthy food is the most commonly reported coping households Households wit strategy (78.7 percent). h at least one child, as compared to all households, are statistically significantly more likely to report purchasing inexpensive, unhealthy food, with 83.5 percent reporting this coping strategy. Grocery program client households are statistically signifi cantly more likely than meal program households to report purchasing inexpensive, unhealthy s for negative health This strategy has known risk food (80.0 percent as compared to 69.1 percent). sugar can contribute to obesity, higher in fat, sodium, and that are , foods . For example outcomes poor nutrition. heart disease, diabetes, low energy levels, and making less optimal food choices, including eating food past the Many households also report 100 More than half of expiration date (56.1 percent), and watering down food or drink (40.0 percent). households report purchasing food in dented or damaged packages, although this is not necessarily 101 ogram clients are Households of grocery pr an unsafe practice if the food is handled safely. statistically significantly more likely to purchase food with dented or damaged packaging percent) as compared to households of meal program clients (44.4 percent). Households with (53.2 at least one senior, as compared to all households, are statistically significantly more likely to eat food past the expiration date (60.2 percent). Households with at least one child, as compared to all households, are statistically significantly more likely to purchase food in dented or damaged (55.4 percent) and to water down food and drink (44.8 percent). These particular coping packages strategies suggest that some Feeding America clients and their household members are engaging in concerning behaviors in order to feed themselves and their families. 100 by date - Clients were asked about “expiration date” on the survey, which they may have interpreted as either the sell or the best products. by date since either can be displayed on - 101 www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/BuyStoreServeSafeFood/ucm197835.htm See Hunger in America 2014 National Report 150

166 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - 12. Client households by coping strategies used to get enough food in the past Table 5 months 12 Type program of All food Meal enough get to used programs trategies Grocery Coping s food households All 54.1% food past expiration 57.1% 56.1% Eaten date food in a garden 14.6% 23.6% 22.7% Grew Sold or p personal property 31.8% 35.9% 34.9% awned packages in dented or damaged 44.4% 53.2% 51.7% Purchased food inexpensive, unhealthy food 69.1% Purchased 78.7% 80.0% Received help from family or friends 49.7% 53.5% 52.5% Watered or drinks down 38.3% 40.9% 40.0% food Weighted nonreporting client households 0.2M 0.9M 1.0M Total weighted N 5.4M 5.8M 1.1M with at least one child Households 55.7% food past expiration date 54.4% 54.6% Eaten food Grew a garden 12.8% 25.9% 25.5% in Sold or p personal property awned 45.2% 45.0% 38.4% Purchased food in dented or damaged packages 50.9% 55.5% 55.4% Purchased unhealthy food 77.0% 83.7% 83.5% inexpensive, 60.9% 61.4% Received help from family or friends 57.3% food Watered or drinks down 45.2% 44.6% 44.8% Households with at least one senior Eaten past expiration date food 59.3% 61.3% 60.2% food in a garden 22.6% 25.7% 25.4% Grew personal 22.8% 23.4% 21.7% property Sold or p awned Purchased in dented or damaged packages 40.8% 51.3% 50.0% food unhealthy food inexpensive, 75.1% 73.5% Purchased 58.8% 36.1% 41.2% 40.5% Received help from family or friends food or drinks 33.4% 35.2% down 34.1% Watered with at least one child and one senior Households food past expiration 59.5% date Eaten 62.1% 62.0% Grew in a garden 35.6% 29.9% 29.9% food Sold or p personal property awned 36.5% 36.5% 24.5% Purchased food in dented or damaged packages 54.5% 54.9% 54.9% Purchased inexpensive, unhealthy food 72.5% 81.2% 81.2% Received help from family or friends 50.3% 53.2% 53.0% drinks 37.6% 43.3% 43.1% Watered down food or Households no children or seniors with Eaten past expiration date food 53.4% 58.1% 56.1% Grew food in a garden 13.1% 20.0% 18.8% 36.0% Sold or p personal property awned 38.9% 37.4% Purchased food in dented or damaged packages 46.6% 52.7% 50.3% 80.0% Purchased unhealthy food 71.8% 81.8% inexpensive, Received help from family or friends 56.0% 57.0% 56.0% Watered down food or drinks 39.7% 43.2% 41.3% Data Source: Hunger in America 2014 Client Survey, Q43A through Q43G. Respondents could select multiple strategies, thus numbers do not sum to 100%. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse from participat ing clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number of respondents eligible to ans wer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across numbers because do not sum to all food program program numbers and grocery program numbers tables because of valid skips. Meal the weight for - removes double the unduplicated count that forms the basis for food programs all counting of clients served by both types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 151

167 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ One possible reason for making less optimal food choices is the lack of healthier or better choices are both available and affordable that . The Client Survey also asked clients to identify foods they most want, but do not usually get, from the meal or grocery program they were visiting. Clients identify fresh fruit and vegetables as the most desired item not received (55.0 percent), followed by protein food items like meat (47.1 percent) and dairy products such as milk, cheese, or yogurt 102 percent). Nonperishable items, which may be more easily available through the food (40.0 lower rates. programs, were identified at much Across all households slightly more than 50 percent receive help from family and friends as a . While this coping strategy may be successful in the short term, it strategy for getting enough food cre could - term solution as it ate burden for family or friends who may not have may not be a long the resources for long statistically are at least one senior term support. Notably, households with - in significantly less likely than other household types to receive help from families and friends . enough food getting is , strategy (22.7 percent overall) coping the least commonly employed Growing food in a garden and it is statistically significantly lower among households of meal program clients (14.6 percent) as compared to grocery program clients (23.6 p ercent), possibly reflecting that some meal programs are residential and have no facilities for gardens of households growing food in gardens . The percentage statistically significantly higher, however, among households with at least one child and at le ast is (29.9 percent) one senior as compared to all households. Selling or pawning personal property to obtain funds for food is reported by 34.9 percent of significantly more common among households with households overall, but is statistically at least percent), and at least significantly less common among households with statistically one (45.0 child one senior (22.8 percent). Also important is the percentage of households that report engaging in more than one of these coping 13). - - More than half of households month period (Table 5 strategies within the same 12 (54.8 percent) report using three or more coping strategies in the past 12 months . Most households are employing multiple e, coping strategies, in addition to seeking federal or charitable food assistan c to try to secure enough food, demonstrating that they are expending great effort to piece together solutions to reduce the likelihood of hunger in their households. 102 want, so percentages exceed 100 percent. Clients could identify up to three items they most Hunger in America 2014 National Report 152

168 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ Hunger in America 2014 National Report 153

169 5 Use of Food Assistance Clients Households’ - Client households reporting number of coping Table 5 strategies used to get enoug h food in 13. the past 12 months Type of program All food used Grocery Meal Number of coping programs strategies None 16.4% 10.2% 11.2% 19.9% 15.2% 16.0% 1 15.1% 2 18.4% 18.1% 3 16.9% 19.8% 19.3% 19.2% 4 18.7% 19.5% 16.9% 12.9% 5 or more 16.3% 100% 100% 100% Total nonreporting client households Weighted 0.1M 0.3M 0.3M Total weighted N 1.1M 5.4M 5.8M through Q43A 2014 Q43G. Data Source: Hunger Survey, in America Client Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. NOTE: All data were weighted as described in Chapter 2. Percentages reported in tables are calculated from valid responses which exclude nonresponse and valid skips due to survey item skip patterns. Numbers listed under nonreporting clients include missi ng data due to item nonresponse fr om participating clients. All estimates are weighted to account for program and client sampling as well as survey nonresponse from nonparticipating food banks, agencies, programs, and clients. Total weighted N reflects the weighted number igible to answer the question. It includes missing data but excludes valid skips. Total weighted N can vary across of respondents el numbers because Meal program numbers tables because of valid skips. and grocery program numbers do not sum to all food program the unduplicat the weight for all food programs removes double - counting of clients served by both ed count that forms the basis for types of programs. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 154

170 6 Summary of Findings (HIA 2014) is Feeding America’s sixth quadrennial comprehensive study of Hunger in America 2014 network of charitable food assistance. Using a four - stage sampling design and two phases of data its , the study utilizes more than collection member food banks’ 32,000 surveys of Feeding America partner agencies that provide food assistance services, and more than 60,000 surveys of clients served by the meal and grocery programs the partner agencies operate. The survey results, weighted - to - date and complete to represent the full national Feeding America network, provide the most up profile of this critical par t of the charitable sector in the United States . We estimate that Feeding America is currently serving 46.5 million unique individuals in 15.5 million households annually across the 50 states, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico . Feeding America’s more than 200 member 46,000 partner agencies, and food bank s offer this assistance through collaboration with more than agencies operate. more than 58,000 meal and grocery programs the took place during a p eriod with Completed at the end of August 2013, HIA 2014 data collection historically hi gh demand for food assistance. Unemployment, poverty , and food insecurity rates remained high since the Great Recession of 2008, and the number of households receiving nutrition assistance from the federal government’s Supplementa l Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) had increased by approximately 50 percent between 2009 and 2013. Demand for charitable food assistance also expanded during this time. study ssons for future methods, including the challenges an d le This national report summarizes the It describes the range of partner agencies and programs in the Feeding America network, research. including the services they provide, their sources of food, how they staff their operations , and the and characteristics of individual clients served by challenges they face. The report details the number these programs, and explores clients’ household circumstances including demographic characteristics, employment, health, and household income . Client household s’ food security status, use of o ther nutrition assistance programs, and coping strategies employed to secure enough food complete this profile. The information will help to guide future policy decisions to address the issue . of hunger in America Hunger in America 2014 National Report 155

171 6 Summary of Findings .1 6 Feeding America Completing a National Profile of the Network and Its Clients .1.1 6 Innovations in Hunger in America 2014 HIA 2014 marks a departure from previous Hunger in America (HIA) studies in an effort to capture more effectively the scope of services provided by the Feeding America net work and the characteristics of the clients and households using the services. As described in Chapter 2, HIA 2014 included many additional types of programs, such as nonemergency programs, for the first time, and that provide meals and those that provide groceries. The broadened the program categories to those study design was also modified to use results from the Agency Survey as the basis for the sample design for the Client Survey to ensure a more rigorous random sampling process and better tailor ampling plans for each individual food bank. the s Data collection was modernized to take advantage of the benefits of electronic data collection. For the Agency Survey phase of data collection, the use of electronic surveys allowed for more secure transmission of survey data and increased monitoring of the data collection efforts. Conducting the Client Survey electronically on tablet computers allowed for the embedding of skip logic into the Client Survey through Audio surveys. In addition, the use of tablets made it possible to offer the - Computer Interviewing (ACASI), providing the respondents with increased privacy for - Assisted Self their responses. ACASI also opened the door to offering the survey in five languages rather than the two languages offered in pre vious HIA studies. Finally, innovations in led to an increased number of completed program visits for the HIA 2014 Client Survey at the national level. In an effort to obtain more precise data, and because there is within the same different programs than known to be greater diversity among clients across p rogram , food banks were asked to visit a larger number of their food programs to survey their clients. As a result, food banks collectively visited more than twice as many programs in 2014 as in the previous HIA study. 6.1.2 n America 2014 hallenges in Hunger i Select C While design and survey innovations have resulted in a study that moves HIA forward in its goal of representing fully the services and clients of the Feeding America network, innovation is not without Hunger in America 2014 National Report 156

172 6 Summary of Findings A studies must be made cautiously as the changes in consequences: comparisons to previous HI design and population studied mean that direct comparisons of the data are no longer fully interpretable. While some differences in results may be due to changes over time in the network, nsequences of the differences between the studies. others may be co Using Agency Survey data as the basis for Client Survey sampling was an innovation that tightened the study design. Yet doing so required that member food banks identify all their partner agencies for the initial frame, and this proved to be an unexpected challenge. The differentiation between partner agencies and the programs they operate is not always immediately apparent or easy to ling frame led to determine, and confusion about who should be included in the agency samp inadvertent omissions from the sample. When omissions were discovered after the Client Survey hoc changed the - program visit sample was drawn, introduction of those cases into the sample post omplex statistical adjustments to maintain the nature of the probability sample and required c integrity of the estimates (see the Technical Volume for details). Innovation also did not obviate all previous challenges. As in previous HIA studies, children are Children are not able to consent to direct participation underrepresented in the Client Survey data. in surveys. Consequently, programs that serve children uniquely were not eligible to be sampled for the Client Survey, and as children were not eligible to be sampled at multigenerational meal progr ams, the number of children served by the network is underestimated. This has been a consistent challenge for the HIA studies, and remained so for HIA 2014. Future HIA studies, or - embedded sub e more effectively the studies, may want to look for creative methodologies to estimat number of children served. HIA 2014 also encountered the same benefits and challenges as in past HIA studies related to the use of volunteer data collectors. The study could not be implemented without the dedicated work of banks in training and monitoring generous volunteer data collectors alongside their regular the food staff. Yet volunteer data collectors, with their limited time dedicated to the study, bring a level of unpredictability to the work that resulted in some departures from the specified sampling design and study procedures. The ACASI surveys eased the burden on data collectors to learn skip patterns and survey administration techniques, but could not simplify the complex task of sampling or other ling challenges. operational and schedu Hunger in America 2014 National Report 157

173 6 Summary of Findings The Feeding America Network of Services 6.2 Range of Partner Agencies and Programs 6.2.1 member food bank s, working with their partner agencies, provide food and Feeding America’s services to people in all 50 states, Washington, DC and P uerto Rico. Based on the Agency Survey, weighted to represent the entire network, the food banks in the Feed ing America network partner with more than 46,000 charitable agencies to distribute food to clients through more than 58,000 agencies are faith - based ms meal and grocery progra More than half (62 percent) of partner . ed in a religious institution, but agencies also include numerous other organizations or locat nonprofit or private organizations, Community Action Programs, and state or local government a gencies. In addition to the 58,000 programs operated by partner agencies that provide clients with meals and related benefit - groceries, many partner agencies also offer assistance and outreach for food programs such as SNAP, nutrition education, and assis food challenges related - tance with other non to housing, clothing, and legal advice. Although most agencies offer only food programs (either meal food programs, or or grocery, 64.9 percent), nearly one - - third of agencies offer both food and non provide non - food services such as benefits assistance, outreach, or referrals, as an integrated component of their food programs. The breadth of services offered reflects the diversity of needs partner agencies’ relief is a major part of most - among Feeding America clients. While hunger missions, ensuring that people in need can get appropriate assistance with other hurdles of daily life emerges as a strong focus. 6.2.2 Partner Agency and Program Resources Partner agencies and their programs require personnel, food, a nd money to operate. Only half of the partner agencies employ any paid staff. Instead they rely on a volunteer workforce to deliver their services. In a typical month, nearly 2 million volunteers contribute more than 8.4 million hours of programs. Volunteers are of all ages, and once engaged tend to stay engaged. their time to food But volunteers are not enough to perpetuate services; partner agencies and their programs need both food and money to continue operating. Programs acquire food from various sour ces. The majority comes from Feeding America member food banks (61.8 percent of the total food distributed). Food Hunger in America 2014 National Report 158

174 6 Summary of Findings also comes from donations, food banks outside the Feeding America network, and purchases to fill gaps. Funding directly to the partner agencie s comes from various sources, including individual contributions, religious institutions, government, foundations, corporations, and other sources. Few food services such partner agencies collect funds from client service fees they could charge for non - as trainings, social activities, or professional services, choosing instead to serve clients without charge. Programs often stretch to meet clients’ food assistance needs. To maintain their ability to serve ions during the past 12 months, including cutting partner ome clients, s report making reduct agencies back on hours of operation, laying off staff, and limiting service areas. The partner agencies that have scaled back operations most often attribute their actions to reductions in monetary and food s rather than the increase in demand for food. The majority of the partner agencies making donation these reductions are at least somewhat worried about their ability to continue providing services, sing concerns. citing need for more money and more food supplies as the most pres Food Assistance Clients and Their Households Are Diverse 6.3 Using the HIA 2014 data, we estimate the Feeding America network serves 46.5 million unique or ates. Each “unduplicated” individuals in 15.5 million households annually across the United St month 5.8 million unique households receive assistance from the network. Many clients receive food multiple times during the year, so estimating each time clients are reached through food distributions lion individual client interactions through food programs yields a “duplicated” estimate of 389.2 mil in a year. Client and Demographic Household s 6.3.1 Characteristic Individual clients vary greatly in their demographic characteristics. On an annual level, individual seniors, including 28.5 percent of the clients who are children under age clients range from infants to 18 (a likely underestimate for reasons described earlier in this chapter). They are racially and quarter of the adults do not hold a h ethnically diverse, and although more than one igh school - Equivalency diploma or General Diploma (GED), the majority of adult clients have at least a high quarter of the adult clients have completed education beyond - school diploma or more. Over one Hunger in America 2014 National Report 159

175 6 Summary of Findings high school, and 5.7 percent hold a four - year college degree or higher. More than 10 percent are currently students, continuing their education. Households of Feeding America clients are also diverse. Ages of household members vary. Nearly third of - approximately one 40 percent of households contain at least one child under age 18, and households contain at least one senior age 60 or older. Household size varies, with 28.4 percent of households being one - person households. Most meal program clients (70.1 percent) do not live with anyone else with whom they sha re living expenses. The modal household size for grocery program clients is two to three members, but over 5 percent of grocery program client households have more than six members. More than one in seven client households contain individuals of multiple r aces or ethnicities. Approximately 20 percent of households contain someone who has either past or present military service. 6.3.2 Challenges Client Households Face Feeding America clients and their households come from diverse backgrounds and circumstances. one challenge among many Their commonality is a need for food assistance, but food may be only as a percentage of the poverty level, in the past month Looking at income that they face. 50.7 ouseholds fall at or below 100 percent of the poverty level. percent of Feeding America client h 61.9 Among households with at least one child , , and percent fall at or b elow the poverty level 33.1 percent are at or below the poverty level. at least one senior among households with 10 One in income during the past year. client households report s having no the most employed person worked within the past four weeks. In 34 percent of client households, In 23 percent of client households, the most employed person from the past year is currently unemployed, but looking for work and ready for employment. An additional 42 percent are out of kforce and not looking for work, in most cases because they are retired, disabled, or in poor the wor health. Some households have additional barriers to employment, including caregiving responsibilities, or in a small percentage of households criminal histories t hat may make finding employment more challenging. Among those who have worked in the past year, 57 percent report typically working only part time. But nearly 20 percent of all households - - time rather than full contain adult students, and education or train ing may serve as a bridge to future employment. Health problems are common in client households. Nearly 50 percent of respondents report being quarter report having another household member in poor - in fair or poor health, and nearly one Hunger in America 2014 National Report 160

176 6 Summary of Findings seholds generally have high rates of diabetes (33.2 percent) and high blood Client hou health. pressure (57.8 percent). While chronic disease rates are highest among households with at least one senior (47.2 percent have a member with diabetes and 77.3 percent have a member with high blood pressure), 28.4 percent of households with at least one child have a member with diabetes and nearly half (49.4 percent) have a member with high blood pressure. In 28.6 percent of households, no one d 55.1 percent of households have unpaid medical bills. in the household has health insurance, an Regarding housing, most (93.2 percent) client households reside in a nontemporary housing arrangement, including houses or townhouses (42.9 percent), apartments (33.7 percent), and mobile homes or tr ailers (12.5 percent). But 6.9 percent live in temporary housing such as shelters, missions, transitional living situations, or on the streets. Temporary housing is more common among those At least s (4.5 percent). using meal programs (33.6 percent) than those using grocery program the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s percent of client households meet 4.9 103 . definition of “homeless ” Client Households’ Food Security, Use of Food Assistance, and Other 6.3.3 Coping Strategies Given their high rates of poverty, many clients struggle to provide sufficient and healthy food for item set of food security questions, 83.8 percent of all client - their households. Based on a six Clients work to make households classify as experiencing food insecurity in the past 12 months. ends meet and secure food however they can, including making tough choices about what necessities they can afford, seeking out various sources of food assistance, and employing a variety of coping strategies to get enough food. Most c lient households face tough choices between paying for food and other necessities. For example, 65.9 percent report choosing between paying for food and medical care during the year; 69.3 percent choose between paying for food and utilities, 57.1 percent c hoose between paying for food and housing, and 66.5 percent choose between paying for food and transportation. 103 This percentage includes client households reporting residing in abandoned buildings, bus or train stations, parks, campgrounds, or airports; residing in cars, vans, boats, or recreational vehicles; living on the street; and residing in shelters, missions, or transitional living situations. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 161

177 6 Summary of Findings More than 60 percent of client households plan on getting charitable food assistance from a Feeding king ends meet. Many client households also seek help America program as a regular strategy for ma from government food assistance programs; about half (54.8 percent) report currently receiving benefits from SNAP. Almost half of those not receiving SNAP have never applied for this benefit, because they do not think they are eligible. Despite this perception, 72.0 percent of most often households not receiving SNAP report incomes at or below the SNAP income eligibility limit in their state. Many households receive other types of nutrition assistance f ocused specifically on children. For example, among households with at least one child, 24.4 percent receive benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which serves pregnant four percent of households with school - aged children receive Ninety - women and children ages 0 - 5. free or reduced price school - price school lunches, and more than 46 percent receive free or reduced - al programs, breakfast. Approximately 8 percent of households participate in afterschool snack or me prepare food for the weekends through the BackPack - to - and 8 percent receive nutritious, easy weekend food program. Besides participation in food assistance programs, client households also engage in a range of other coping strategies to ensur e they have sufficient food. More than half receive help from family or friends in getting enough food, and nearly 23 percent grow food in a garden, but many turn to less than optimal solutions. Nearly 79 percent purchase inexpensive unhealthy food just to have enough food, and 40.0 percent water down their food or drinks to make what they have last. Feeding America client households face a multitude of challenges, and employ many productive and some potentially detrimental strategies to try to ensure that they and their households have enough to eat. The HIA 2014 national report provides a picture of the circumstances of the national Feeding - America network and its clients. Local circumstances are further described through state and food ts based on HIA 2014 data. Other Feeding America reports, including Map the Meal - level repor bank Gap, delve further into the need for and use of food assistance in communities across the United ding America, its States. HIA 2014 and these other studies illuminate the critical role that Fee member food banks, partner agencies, and their programs play in addressing hunger in America. Hunger in America 2014 National Report 162

Related documents

Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand

Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand

A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand U ranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand N E A

More info »
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.115

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.115

131 STAT. 135 PUBLIC LAW 115–31—MAY 5, 2017 * Public Law 115–31 115th Congress An Act Making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for May 5, 2017 other purposes. [H.R. 244...

More info »
WEF GlobalInformationTechnology Report 2014

WEF GlobalInformationTechnology Report 2014

Insight Report The Global Information Technology Report 2014 Rewards and Risks of Big Data Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin, Editors

More info »
pisa 2012 results volume I

pisa 2012 results volume I

PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do tICS, themA StuDent PeRfoRmAnCe In mA ReADIng AnD SCIenCe Volume I rogramme for ssessment A tudent S nternational I P

More info »
HS Full Reduced

HS Full Reduced

State(s) of Head Start

More info »
CityNT2019TentRoll 1

CityNT2019TentRoll 1

STATE OF NEW YORK 2 0 1 9 T E N T A T I V E A S S E S S M E N T R O L L PAGE 1 VALUATION DATE-JUL 01, 2018 COUNTY - Niagara T A X A B L E SECTION OF THE ROLL - 1 CITY - North Tonawanda TAX MAP NUMBER ...

More info »
Microsoft Word   Standard Sewer & Water Main Specification July 1,2014 CompleteBook Print Format

Microsoft Word Standard Sewer & Water Main Specification July 1,2014 CompleteBook Print Format

THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER AND SEWER OPERATIONS STANDARD SEWER AND WATER MAIN SPECIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2014 Patalano Revised: July 1, 2014; Purnima Dhari...

More info »
a i4787e

a i4787e

2015 ISSN 2412-5474 nimal genetic resource diversity underpins the supply livestock products and A services across a wide range of production environments. It promotes resilience and serves as a basis...

More info »
The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standards and the Green Economy

The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2014: Standards and the Green Economy

The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review Standards and the 2014 Green Economy Jason Potts, Matthew Lynch, Ann Wilkings, Gabriel Huppé, Maxine Cunningham, Vivek Voora

More info »
Microsoft Word   147400

Microsoft Word 147400

Federal Communications Commission FCC 15 -24 the Before Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) GN Docket No. 14 -28 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet ) ...

More info »
a i5199e

a i5199e

Status of the Main Report World’s Soil Resources © FAO | Giuseppe Bizzarri INTERGOVERNMENTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL TECHNICAL PANEL ON SOILS TECHNICAL PANEL ON SOILS

More info »
625137

625137

2018-19 Nebraska All-Sports Record Book - Nebraska Communications Office -

More info »
StateoftheClimate2015 lowres

StateoftheClimate2015 lowres

STATE OF THE CLIMATE I N 2015 Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 97, No. 8, August 2016

More info »
LaneEtAlPrivacyBigDataAndThePublicGood

LaneEtAlPrivacyBigDataAndThePublicGood

This is a prel version of the book Privacy, Big Data , and the Public Good : iminary er, and for Lane, Victoria Stodden, Stefan Bend nt, ed. Julia Helen Niss enbaum Frameworks Engageme Unive rsity Pre...

More info »
Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space

Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space

TIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS THE NA This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24938 SHARE     Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space DET AILS 700 pages | 8.5 ...

More info »
At the Dawn of Belt and Road: China in the Developing World

At the Dawn of Belt and Road: China in the Developing World

At the Dawn of Belt and Road China in the Developing World Andrew Scobell, Bonny Lin, Howard J. Shatz, Michael Johnson, Larry Hanauer, Michael S. Chase, Astrid Stuth Cevallos, Ivan W. Rasmussen, Arthu...

More info »
ECI Historical Listing    Volume III   March 2019

ECI Historical Listing Volume III March 2019

Employment Cost Index National Compensation Survey – Volume III Historical Listing April www.bls.gov/ect 2019 (December 2005=100) 2019 -March Current Dollar, March 2001 The estimates from 2001 to 2005...

More info »
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Draft Environmental Impact Statement July 2018 Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0069

More info »
Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Update

Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Update

201 8 Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals U pdated Tables, March 2018 , Volume One

More info »