Table of Contents. Executive Summary 2. Message from the Executive Director 9. Report Methodology 13

Transcription

1

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Message from the Executive Director 9 Report Methodology 13 Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York City 15 Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York State Citywide Emergency Food Provider Survey Results 23 Year-to-Year Comparisons 28 Bronx Results 29 Brooklyn Results 31 Manhattan Results 33 Queens Results 35 Staten Island Results 37 Appendix 1 Selected Quotes from Emergency Food Providers 39 Appendix 2 Details on Current and Future SNAP Cuts 41 Appendix Survey Questionnaire 42 Acknowledgements 49

3 Executive Summary Food insecurity and hunger remain high throughout New York City, with one in six city residents and one in five children living in homes that couldn t afford enough food in the time period. These levels are essentially unchanged, staying at the same high level since the start of the recession in Statewide in New York, one in eight residents suffered food insecurity in , representing a 40 percent jump from the time period. New York City s food pantries and soup kitchens faced an increased demand of 10 percent in 2013, on top of increases of 5 percent in 2012, 12 percent in 2011, 7 percent in 2010, and 29 percent in Yet 56.8 percent of these agencies suffered from cuts in combined government and private resources, compared to only percent that benefitted from increased resources in Consequently, nearly half (45.1 percent) reported they lacked sufficient resources to meet the growing demand and nearly half (45.6 percent) said they were forced to turn people away, reduce the amount of food distributed per person, or limit their hours of operation because they lacked sufficient resources in The majority of responding agencies citywide (59.5 percent), and all the agencies in Staten Island, responded that they are feeding more people than before, at least partially due to Superstorm Sandy. While 6.8 percent citywide reported: We are still feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy, fully 52.7 percent reported: We are feeding more people now than before Sandy, but the storm itself is only one factor; the still-weak economy and social service cut-backs are other factors. The recession and Superstorm Sandy exposed and exacerbated the city's already massive poverty and hunger yet the policies and programs designed to redress the economic downturn and the natural disaster generally failed to attack the underlying structural inequality that created the problems. The ongoing and proposed additional cuts in federal nutrition assistance programs will further increase local hunger. This report is based on two entirely different sets of data. The first set of data is federal food insecurity/hunger statistics collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and analyzed by the Coalition, and is based on three-year averages, with the most recent year being The second set of data was collected by the Coalition in the fall of 2013 from a survey of the city s more than 1,100 soup kitchens and food pantries, of which a large sample size of 254 responded, providing data for all of

4 Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York City One in Six New York City Residents between 1.3 and 1.4 million Are Food Insecure In an estimated average of between 1.3 and 1.4 million New York City residents, or approximately 16 percent of New Yorkers, were food insecure. That number, which represents one in six New Yorkers, also includes children and seniors over the age of 60. It also represents, at minimum, a 200,000 person (two percent) increase from when there were approximately 1.12 million food insecure New Yorkers. In comparison, 1.7 million New Yorkers, or one in five, lived below the meager federal poverty line ($19,090 for a family a three) over , compared to 1.6 million in 2010 an increase of 100,000 New Yorkers. Borough* Percent Food Percent Food Percentage Change Insecure ( ) Insecure ( ) Bronx % Brooklyn % Manhattan % Queens % * In general, due to sampling issues, the data for percent of people is more accurate than the data for the total number of people food insecure. Citywide numbers and percentages for food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate a borough- specific food insecurity rate for Staten Island. According to U.S. Census data, Staten Island had a poverty rate of 11.6 for the years of ; the food insecurity rate is likely similar % Percent of NYC Residents Living in Food Insecure Households 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % 0.00% Total Seniors Children 3

5 One in Five New York City Children Nearly Half a Million Live in Food Insecure Homes In , and estimated average of 406,260 children in New York City lived in food insecure households that did not have an adequate food supply throughout the year. This number represents percent, or one in five of the city s child population. It also represents a 10 percent increase from , when an estimated 369,415 New York City children lived in food insecure homes. Borough* Percent of Children in Food Insecure Homes ( ) Percent of Children in Food Insecure Homes ( ) Bronx % Brooklyn % Manhattan % Queens % Percentage Change * In general, due to sampling issues, the data for percent of people is more accurate than the data for the total number of people food insecure. Note that, given smaller sub-samples for these boroughs and sub-populations, margins of error are higher. citywide numbers and percentages for child food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate a borough- specific child food insecurity rate for Staten Island. In 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 14.6 percent of Staten Island children lived in poverty % Percent of Children Living In Food Insecure Households by Borough 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens 4

6 One in 10 New York City Seniors (Over the age of 60) Live in Food Insecure Households In there were an estimated 175,851 food insecure seniors over the age of 60 in the city. This number represents 11.5 percent, or one in 10 of the city s senior population. It also represents a 33 percent increase from , when an estimated 132,113 New York City seniors lived in food insecure homes. Borough* Percent of Food Insecure Seniors ( ) Percent of Food Insecure Seniors ( ) Bronx % Brooklyn % Manhattan % Queens % 5 Percentage Change * In general, due to sampling issues, the data for percent of people is more accurate than the data for the total number of people food insecure. Note that, given smaller sub-samples for these boroughs and sub-populations, margins of error are higher. Citywide numbers and percentages for food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate food security rates. According to U.S. Census data, Staten Island had a poverty rate of 11.6 for the years of ; the food insecurity rate is likely similar.

7 25.00% Percent of Seniors Living in Food Insecure Households by Borough 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York State In , there were an average of 2,664,569 food insecure individuals in New York State. This number represents percent of the population, or over one in eight New Yorkers. That represents a 40 percent jump from the time period. In , 821,610 children in New York State (19.7 percent) lived in food insecure homes. This is a 19 percent increase from when 693,066 children lived in food insecure homes, or percent. In ,453 seniors in New York State (7 percent) lived in food insecure homes. This is a 67 percent increase from when 165,347 seniors lived in food insecure homes % 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Percent of NYS Residents that Live in Food Insecure Households Individual Household Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Everyone Seniors Children 6

8 2013 Citywide Results of the Coalition s Emergency Food Provider Survey Growing Demand Coupled With Budget Cuts Forces Food Rationing The city s food pantries and soup kitchens faced an increased demand of 10 percent in 2013, on top of increases of 5 percent in 2012, 12 percent in 2011, 7 percent in 2010, and 29 percent in Yet 56.8 percent of these agencies suffered from cuts in combined government and private resources, compared to only percent that benefitted from an increase in Consequently, near half (45.1 percent) report they lack sufficient resources to meet the growing demand and nearly half (45.6) said they were forced to turn people away, reduce the amount of food distributed per person, or limit their hours of operation because they lacked sufficient resources in The agencies faced particularly severe cuts in funding through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), which suffered through both long-term, multi-year budget cuts as well as through more recent budget cuts as a result of sequestration. Feeding Agencies Still Greatly Impacted by Superstorm Sandy The majority of responding agencies at 59.5 percent responded that they are feeding more people than before, at least partially due to Sandy. While 6.8 percent reported: We are still feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy, fully 52.7 reported: We are feeding more people now than before Sandy, but the storm itself is only one factor; the still-weak economy and social service cut-backs are other factors. While this data proves that Sandy still has an indirect economic impact in every low-income neighborhood of the city, it is no surprise that the areas hardest hit by Sandy, especially Staten Island, are still facing the greatest negative consequences of the storm. In Staten Island, 100 percent of the food pantries and soup kitchens are still feeding more people as a result of the storm, with 16.7 percent facing a direct impact and 83.3 percent facing an indirect impact. Which Statement Best Reflects How Sandy Impacts Your Program? 6.80% We are still feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy % 52.70% We are feeding more people now, but Sandy is just one factor why We are not feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy. 7

9 Programs Need Skilled Volunteers and Policy Advocates Pantries and kitchens also reported that they needed more skilled volunteers for year-round tasks. Just 11 percent of responding programs need only unskilled volunteers to do things such as serve soup, pack cans, or work in the pantry at some time during the year. On the other hand, 19 percent of responding agencies reported needing long-term skilled volunteers, while 16.7 percent reported the need for both skilled, and unskilled, volunteers. Tellingly, 53.3 percent of the agencies said they did not need any more volunteers at all, thereby bolstering the Coalition s long-held belief that while increasing the number of people who volunteer to provide direct meal service can marginally aid the fight against hunger (and should surely be encouraged), such efforts are wholly inadequate and cannot substitute for volunteer efforts to help people enroll in safety net programs and advocate for national policies that ensure living wage jobs and an adequate government social safety net. 8

10 A Message from the Coalition s Executive Director One year after Superstorm Sandy and five years after the official end of the great recession of , many elites have declared full economic recovery. For the wealthy, times are better than ever. According to Forbes data, over the last two years, the collective net worth of New York's 53 billionaires rose from $210 to $277 billion a 31 percent jump. In contrast, the city's entire municipal budget is now about $70 billion, meaning that the 53 wealthiest New Yorkers have about four times the city's combined annual spending on police, roads, schools, parks, social services, transportation, sanitation, and firefighters. Median household annual income in New York is now $50,895 and a person working full-time at the minimum wage would earn $15,080. That means that those 53 billionaires now have as much money as five million average families and 17 million minimum wage workers. Those vast disparities wouldn't be so troubling if everyone did actually benefit. But middle-class income, adjusted for inflation, is lower than a decade ago. Poverty, hunger, and homelessness have soared. Nearly half the population is poor or near poor. This is a tale of two food cities. One in six New Yorkers and one in five of the city s children now live in homes that can t afford enough food. The recession and Superstorm Sandy merely exposed and exacerbated the city s already massive poverty, hunger, and inequality. Most of the policies intended to redress the recession and Sandy didn t come close to attacking the underlying causes of hunger and poverty, which is why food insecurity is still so high. The majority of food pantries and soup kitchens that responded to our survey citywide, and all the agencies in Staten Island, reported that they are feeding more people than before, at least partially due to Superstorm Sandy. Meanwhile, wealthy New Yorkers have never had greater access to plentiful, artisanal, gourmet food from around the globe. Making matters even worse, federal nutrition assistance programs are suffering from the worst attacks in decades. The city s food pantries and soup kitchens faced particularly severe cuts in funding through the federal FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), which suffered through both longterm, multi-year budget cuts as well as through more recent budget cuts as a result of sequestration. The sequestration is also slashing funding for the nutrition assistance that pregnant women and infants get from the WIC program and that seniors receive through meals-on-wheels. To make matters even worse, all 1.8 million New York City residents who rely on SNAP (formerly food stamps) lost some of their already meager befits on November 1 st. The average family of three lost $29 per month, more than 20 meals monthly. The city s economy is losing more than $200 million in federal aid in the next year. 9

11 On top of all that, the House and Senate passed Farm Bills further slashing SNAP by another $40 billion and $4 billion, respectively. Insane. Immoral. Low-income New Yorkers are facing one of the toughest winters ever this year, and it s not because of the weather. Far too many New Yorkers will have to make the difficult decision between buying groceries or covering basic living expenses. Even before the most recent SNAP cuts kicked in, our annual hunger survey provides hard data to prove what we see every day still soaring hunger. The data proves that the number of poor and hungry New Yorkers has not decreased since the start of the recession. One in six city residents and one in five children still struggle against hunger. It is clear that trickle-down, crony capitalism is failing our city and our society. That s why we are working so hard to support polices to restore opportunity capitalism, America's post-war ethos, under which working families prospered and people in poverty were able to climb into the middle-class. Yet many of the elites still claim to believe in trickle-down economics, which preaches that increased wealth for billionaires will magically seep down into the rest of the economy and eventually lift everyone's fortunes. Yet New York's levels of both poverty and inequality dwarf the levels in other world cities such as Paris, Tokyo, London, and Berlin. The cities with the most poverty -- Mumbai, Cairo, Mexico City -- also have the most inequality of wealth. That reality alone should provide proof positive that massive inequality causes poverty to increase, not decrease. The trickle-down crowd also argues that hiking the wealth of the ultra-rich boosts their charitable donations. In reality, the wealthiest Americans donate a smaller percentage of their income than the poorest. While a few of the nation s billionaires target their philanthropy to the most vulnerable (and we appreciate that!), the bulk of billionaire donations go to cultural, medical, and educational institutions that tend to benefit their own families and social class. But what about the argument that increasing wealth at the top is a chief source of tax revenue needed to fund vital services? That's not true either. Most analyses of tax payments by the wealthy focus only on income taxes, which are marginally progressive, and ignore sales and residential property taxes, which are generally regressive. When total tax burdens are considered, the wealthiest New Yorkers pay less into the system than everyone else. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, in 2010, the top one percent of earners in the city (households earning more than $567,253 annually), earned 37 percent of the city's income, and paid only 28 percent of the tax revenues. Yet the lowest 20 percent of households (earning below $9,131) earned the same percentage of the city's income as the percentage of the city's taxes they paid. The next lowest 20 percent (earning below $20,440) actually paid a greater share of taxes than their share of income. 10

12 Even if the modest tax hike proposed by Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio to pay for universal pre-k an increase in the city income tax rate from 3.9 to 4.4 percent only for those with incomes over $500,000 annually were to become law, the wealthiest would still pay a share of taxes far lower than their share of income. Not only does pre-k boost the educational achievement of children and enable parents who can t afford nannies to go to work, it provides nutritious breakfast and lunches to hungry kids at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. That s why the New York City Coalition Against Hunger so strongly supports the Mayorelect s universal pre-k proposal. It's time to work together to end hunger and food inequality in New York City. We must forcefully reject efforts to further slash vital government programs. We must be clear that the right-wing cuts in food for America s hungry children, seniors, and working people are both immoral and also create a serious impediment to the nation s full economic recovery. Here is the reality. Hungry children can t learn. Hungry adults can t work. Hungry senior citizens can t stay independent. Extrapolating from national data produced by the Center for American Progress, the Coalition s staff has calculated that hunger and food insecurity cost New York City s economy about $5 billion per year. In contrast, the Coalition has also calculated that we could end the problem entirely by increasing the food purchasing power of food insecure and hungry New Yorkers by about $1 billion per year. If you owned a home that had a hole in its roof that cost you $5 per year in extra heating and cooling costs, but you could fix the problem for $1, wouldn t you do so? Of course you would. It s common sense. Likewise, New York City should fix this problem, saving billions of dollars over the long-term. Our elected officials should also use common sense in their decisions on the policies mentioned above. So what s the answer? The federal, state, and local governments all must work together to create more jobs, in every neighborhood. Sure, we must create more high-tech, advanced-skills jobs and create the best educational and training system in the world so more New Yorkers are able to obtain those jobs and excel in them. But we will still need significant numbers of workers in jobs that don t need advanced degrees: people who clean our offices at night, care for our children, pick and serve our food, etc. We should raise the minimum wage and expand living wage laws to ensure that all of the employees who make New York City successful earn enough to pay their rents and feed their families. In short, hard work must pay off. We must ensure that those who work hard and play by the rules can build better lives for themselves and their children. We must have broad-based economic growth that not only increases wealth at the top of our society, but also bolsters the middle-class and enables more low-income families to climb into the middle-class. And for those for whom employment is not available or pays too little we need an adequate nutrition assistance and anti-poverty safety net that makes robust benefits available, free of stigma and hassle, for those in need. 11

13 Our society needs to stop treating the bad luck of being poor as a crime. The real crime is that our society allows massive poverty side-by-side with staggering wealth. The storm and the recession never truly ended for hungry New Yorkers. It s time to end the tale of two food cities and ensure that everyone has enough food on their plates. It s time for us to rise together. Sincerely, Joel Berg, Executive Director New York City Coalition Against Hunger 12

14 Report Methodology This report is based on two entirely different sets of data. The first set of data is federal food insecurity/hunger statistics collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and analyzed by the Coalition, and is based on three-year averages, with the most recent year being The second set of data was collected by the Coalition in the fall of 2013 from a survey of the city s more than 1,100 soup kitchens and food pantries, of which a large sample size of 254 responded, proving data for all of Federal Food Insecurity Data Methodology Data for this section of the report is from an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey. The USDA sponsors the annual survey and the USDA s Economic Research Service compiles and analyzes the responses. The 2012 food security survey covered 43,942 households nationwide, comprising a representative sample of the U.S. civilian population of 116 million households. The food security survey asked one adult respondent in each household a series of questions about experiences and behaviors that indicate food insecurity, such as being unable to afford balanced meals, cutting the size of meals because of too little money for food, or being hungry because of too little money for food. The food security status of the household was assigned based on the number of food insecure conditions reported. The raw data was collected from thousands of households in New York City, and the weighted responses were calculated by NYCCAH. According to the USDA, the number of food insecure conditions and behaviors that the household reports determines the food insecurity status of each interviewed household. Households are classified as being food secure if they report no food insecure conditions or if they report only one or two food insecure conditions. USDA defines food insecure as the condition under which: At least some time during the year, the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Food insecure households are further classified as having either low food security or very low food security. The very low food security category identifies households in which food intake of one or more members was reduced and eating patterns disrupted because of insufficient money and other resources for food. Low and very low food security differ in the extent and character of the adjustments the household makes to its eating patterns and food intake. Households classified as having low food security have reported multiple indications of food access problems, but typically have reported few, if any, indications of reduced food intake. Those classified as having very low food security have reported multiple indications of reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns due to inadequate resources for food. In most, but not all households with very low food security, the survey respondents reported that he or she was hungry at some time during the year, but did not eat because there was not enough money for food. 13

15 Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Year-Long Survey Data Methodology The 2013 questionnaire was originally mailed and ed to a list of 1,100 agencies in New York City that were believed to operate food pantries, soup kitchens, and/or some variety of emergency food program (EFP). The Coalition attempted to ensure that the list of EFPs we used for our survey mailing reflected soup kitchens or food pantries no longer in operation, if possible. It is not uncommon for emergency food providers to operate without a connection to the local food bank or without assistance from a government resource stream. To that end, this year s list of survey recipients was updated after making hundreds of phone calls to our current list of pantries and kitchens to determine which were still in operation. Following our original request for information, Coalition staff made follow-up s, phone calls, and faxes to the list of survey recipients in order to solicit responses and guarantee a viable sample size on which to base our findings. Agencies were encouraged to either mail or fax the completed survey questionnaire to the Coalition, or to complete it online using Survey Monkey, a web-based data collection service. All mailed, faxed, and hand-delivered surveys were entered into the Survey Monkey database by Coalition staff. In total, 254 agencies returned surveys. Agencies that responded to the survey that indicated they did not offer food to the general public, e.g. serving only residents of a transitional housing program, were removed from subsequent analysis, leaving 203 usable surveys. Not all percentages total 100 percent due to rounding and respondents answering unsure to various questions, or checking multiple answers. The overall analyzed response rate for this survey was 254 responses out of a list of 1,100 or 23 percent. Because it is impossible to determine how many people served by pantries and kitchens are duplicated by other pantries and kitchens, this report does not determine the total number of people served by the agencies citywide in any given year. Rather, it determines the rate of change between years. It is also important to note that the soup kitchen and food pantry response is not entirely random. We mail and the survey to every food pantry and soup kitchen we can find in the city, and then we use every response we get. However, soup kitchens and food pantries vary dramatically in size and scope, but most are very small so a handful of the larger ones serve a very high proportion of the charitable meals served in the city. The larger agencies tend to be more likely to respond to this annual survey year after year, and since we report on rate of change not raw numbers of people served, we do think that our focus on the larger agencies actually gives a better picture of the numerical trends than if we used a random sample. Breakdown of Respondent Agency Type: Type Percent Soup Kitchens 14.6 % Food Pantries 58.3 % Soup Kitchens and Food Pantries 21.4% Other 6.0% Ratio of Respondents to Total Agencies by Borough Borough Respondents/ Percent Total Response Agencies Brooklyn 81/328 25% Bronx 61/233 26% Manhattan 64/279 23% Queens 51/261 20% Staten Island 17/41 41% 14

16 Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York City One in Six New York City Residents between 1.3 and 1.4 million Are Food Insecure In , an estimated average of between 1.3 and 1.4 million New York City residents, or approximately 16 percent of New Yorkers, were food insecure. That number, which represents one in six New Yorkers, also includes children and seniors over the age of 60. It also represents, at minimum, a 200,000 person (two percent) increase from when there were approximately 1.12 million food insecure New Yorkers. In comparison, 1.7 million New Yorkers, or one in five, lived below the federal poverty line ($19,090 for a family a three) over , compared to 1.6 million in 2010 an increase of 100,000 New Yorkers. It is important to note that the official federal poverty measure does not take into account most living costs, so, in high cost cities like New York, it underestimates the number of people living in impoverished conditions. Borough* Number of Food Insecure ( ) Number of Food Insecure ( ) Bronx 354, ,666 Brooklyn 257, ,532 Manhattan 208, ,733 Queens 287, ,642 Borough* Percent Food Percent Food Percentage Change Insecure ( ) Insecure ( ) Bronx % Brooklyn % Manhattan % Queens % * In general, due to sampling issues, the data for percent of people is more accurate than the data for the total number of people food insecure. Citywide numbers and percentages for food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate a borough- specific food insecurity rate for Staten Island. According to U.S. Census data, Staten Island had a poverty rate of 11.6 for the years of ; the food insecurity rate is likely similar. 15

17 1,400,000 Total Number Of NYC Residents Living in Food Insecure Households 1,200,000 1,000, , , ,000 Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, ,000 0 Total Seniors Children 25.00% Percent of NYC Residents Living in Food Insecure Households 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % 0.00% Total Seniors Children 16

18 600,000 Total Number of NYC Residents that Live in Food Insecure Housholds by Borough 500, , , , ,000 Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% Percent of NYC Residents that Live in Food Insecure Households by Borough Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % 0.00% Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens 17

19 One in Five New York City Children Nearly Half a Million Are Food Insecure In , an estimated 406,260 children in New York City lived in food insecure households that did not have an adequate food supply throughout the year. This number represents percent, or one in five of the city s child population. It also represents a 10 percent increase from , when 369,415 of New York City children lived in food insecure homes. Borough* Number of Food Insecure Children ( ) Bronx 141, ,047 Brooklyn 91, ,992 Manhattan 58,134 60,508 Queens 74,058 57,417 Number of Food Insecure Children ( ) Borough* Percent of Children in Food Insecure Homes ( ) Percent of Children in Food Insecure Homes ( ) Bronx % Brooklyn % Manhattan % Queens % Percentage Change * In general, due to sampling issues, the data for percent of people is more accurate than the data for the total number of people food insecure. Note that, given smaller sub-samples for these boroughs and sub-populations, margins of error are higher. citywide numbers and percentages for child food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate a borough- specific child food insecurity rate for Staten Island. In 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 14.6 percent of Staten Island children lived in poverty. 18

20 200, , , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Total Number of Children Living in Food Insecure Households by Borough Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Average # Living in Food Insecure Households,

21 60.00% Percent of Children Living In Food Insecure Households by Borough 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens One in 10 New York Seniors (Over the age of 60) Are Food Insecure In , there were an estimated 175,851 food insecure seniors over the age of 60. This number represents 11.5 percent, or one in 10 of the city s senior population. It also represents a 33 percent increase from , when 132,113 New York City seniors lived in food insecure homes. Borough* Number of Food Insecure Seniors ( ) Bronx 34,282 40,411 Brooklyn 40,773 66,072 Manhattan 27,875 34,841 Queens 23,709 33,341 Borough* Percent of Food Insecure Seniors ( ) Number of Food Insecure Seniors ( ) Percent of Food Insecure Seniors ( ) Bronx % Brooklyn % Manhattan % Queens % Percentage Change *In general, due to sampling issues, the data for percent of people is more accurate than the data for the total number of people food insecure. Note that, given smaller sub-samples for these boroughs and sub-populations, margins of error are higher. Citywide numbers and percentages for food insecurity include Staten Island, but there is not enough federal food insecurity data for that borough to adequately calculate food security rates. According to U.S. Census data, Staten Island had a poverty rate of 11.6 for the years of ; the food insecurity rate is likely similar. 20

22 Total Number of Seniors Living in Food Insecure Households by Borough 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, ,000 0 Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens 25.00% Percent of Seniors Living in Food Insecure Households by Borough 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, % Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens 21

23 Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York State In there were 2,664,569 food insecure individuals in New York State. This number represents percent of the population, or over one in 10 New Yorkers. It also represents a 39 percent increase from , when 1,912,164, or just under 12 percent, of New Yorkers were food insecure. That represents a 40 percent jump from the time period, when 9.4 percent of state residents lived in food insecure homes. In ,610 children in New York State (19.7 percent) lived in food insecure homes. This is a 19 percent increase from when 693,066 children lived in food insecure homes, or percent. In ,453 seniors in New York State (7 percent) lived in food insecure homes. This is a 67 percent increase from when 165,347 seniors lived in food insecure homes. Total Number of NYS Residents Living in Food Insecure Households 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Average # Living in Food Insecure Households, Individual Household Everyone Seniors Children 20.00% 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Percent of NYS Residents that Live in Food Insecure Households Individual Household Everyone Seniors Children Average % Living in Food Insecure Households, Average % Living in Food Insecure Households,

24 Citywide Results of the Coalition s Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Survey Growing Demand Coupled With Budget Cuts Forces Food Rationing The city s food pantries and soup kitchens faced increased demand of 10 percent in 2013, on top of increases of 5 percent 2012, 12 percent in 2011, 7 percent in 2010, and 29 percent in Yet 50.7 percent suffered from decreases in government funding, while only 13.6 benefited from increases. Thirty-eight percent of the agencies faced cuts in private food and funding, compared to 7.5 percent who benefited from increases. Asked to report on their combined government and private resources, 56.8 percent suffered from overall cuts compared to only percent that benefitted from an increase in That means five times as many agencies faced cuts as increases. It is no wonder, then, that nearly half (45.1 percent) report they lack sufficient resources to meet the growing demand and nearly half (45.6 percent) said they were forced to turn people away, reduce the amount of food distributed per person, or limit their hours of operation because they lacked sufficient resources in Fully 9.1 percent of the respondents said they knew of a food pantry, soup kitchen, or brown bag program that had shut down or closed for business in the past year. While some programs may have closed because of staffing or other administrative reasons, program directors repeatedly have told the New York City Coalition Against Hunger in conversations that decreases in funding for feeding programs were the main cause of the closings. The agencies faced particularly severe cuts in funding through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), which suffered through both long-term, multi-year budgets cuts as well as through more recent budget cuts as a result of sequestration. Federal funding for the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program in New York City which provides operating funds to local food pantries, soup kitchens, and homelessness prevention programs dropped by a staggering 49 percent over the last five years, despite the soaring need for services. In the program year, funding was $7.2 million for the city, compared to $3.7 million in the current ( ) program year. The current allotment is so low for three reasons: sequestration, the expiration of additional funds provided under the 2009 federal recovery bill, and long-term budget cuts supported by the President and Congress. 23

25 Even though we know from conversations the New York City Coalition Against Hunger has with food pantry and soup kitchen directors on a daily basis that many of the staff and volunteers at EFPs have limited incomes themselves, 48.3 percent of EFPs reported their staff or volunteers sometimes use their own personal money to fund their feeding programs reported that staff rarely use their own personal money. 24

26 Feeding Agencies Still Greatly Impacted by Superstorm Sandy The majority of responding agencies at 59.5 percent responded that they are feeding more people than before, at least partially due to Sandy. While 6.8 percent report, We are still feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy, fully 52.7 reported, We are feeding more people now than before Sandy, but the storm itself is only one factor; the still-weak economy and social service cut-backs are other factors. Which Statement Best Reflects How Sandy Impacts Your Program? 42.50% 6.80% 52.70% We are still feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy. We are feeding more people now, but Sandy is just one factor why We are not feeding more people directly as a result of Sandy. While this data proves that Sandy still has an indirect economic impact in every low-income neighborhood of the city, it is no surprise that the areas hardest by Sandy, especially Staten Island, are still facing the greatest negative consequences due to the storm. In Staten Island, one hundred percent of the food pantries and soup kitchens are still feeding more people as a result of the storm, with 16.7 percent facing a direct impact and 83.3 facing an indirect impact. 25

27 100.0% Agency Response to Impact of Superstorm Sandy 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% Still Impacted By Hurricane Sandy in some way Not Impacted by Hurricane Sandy 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Brooklyn Manhattan Bronx Queens Staten Island Increase Among Various Populations Being Served by EFPs The survey questionnaire asked food pantries and soup kitchens if they noticed a change in the types of clients/customers they served over the past year. Forty-four percent of responding EFPs saw an increase in people with paid work; 69.3 percent saw more families with children; while 50.7 percent reported serving more immigrants over the past year. There was also a significant increase in the number of seniors being served, over 63.8 percent. Finally, 42.8 percent of EFPs reported an increase in homeless clients. It should be noted, however, that only a few of the responding agencies conduct comprehensive client intake that records socio-economic data of their clients, so most agencies provided educated guess about their clients populations based on a mix of records and conversations with clients. Findings on Agency Volunteer Needs Every year between October and December, people think of volunteering at food pantries and soup kitchens during the holidays. This year s survey of emergency food providers reinforced the Coalition s emphasis that while volunteers are necessary to provide direct food service, most agencies do not need additional unskilled volunteers. What pantries and kitchens really need are skilled volunteers to help with such tasks as website design, grant writing, and computer assistance throughout the year. Just 11 percent of responding programs need only unskilled volunteers to do things such as serve soup, pack cans, or work in the pantry at some time during the year. On the other hand, 19 percent of responding agencies reported needing long-term skilled volunteers, while 16.7 percent reported the need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers. Thus, if New Yorkers gave their time and skills to pantries and kitchens year-round and/or aided policy advocacy efforts emergency food providers would be better able to assist hungry families. Tellingly, 53.3 percent of the agencies said they did not need any more volunteers at all, thereby bolstering the Coalition s long-held belief that while increasing volunteerism can 26

28 marginally aid the fight against hunger (and should surely be encouraged), such efforts are wholly inadequate and cannot substitute for volunteer efforts to help people enroll in safety net programs and advocate for national policies that ensure living wage jobs and an adequate government social safety net. In response to this reality, the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, in partnership with ConAgra Foods, has launched a nationwide Ending Hunger Through Citizen Service Initiative to give volunteers better tools to fight the problem year-round. The public can access these tools at In particular, given that $5 billion was just cut from the federal SNAP program, and that another $4 billion to $39 billion in cuts in SNAP is being actively considered by Congress in November 2013, when this report was published, the New York City Coalition Against Hunger encourages the public to make policy advocacy its top volunteer activity. 27

29 Year-to-Year Comparison of NYC Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Data percent of responding programs that are soup kitchens only 14.30% 12.00% 14.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% 9.00% 10.00% percent of responding programs that are food pantries only 58.30% 65.80% 66.00% 64.00% 66.00% 70.00% 65.00% 65.00% percent of responding programs that are both soup kitchens and food pantries percent of responding agencies that don t have enough food to meet the current demand percent of responding agencies at which government money and food decreased in the past year percent of agencies at which overall money and food decreased in the past year 21.40% 22.60% 23.00% 21.00% 20.00% 17.00% 21.00% 18.00% 45.30% 63.20% 62.00% 51.00% 55.00% 67.00% 59.00% 47.00% 50.50%t 68.50% 79.00% 63.00% 50.00% 72.30% 51.00% 40.00% 56.70% 68.20% 74.00% 58.00% 52.00% 71.80% 50.00% 41.00% Borough Comparisons in Pantry and Kitchen Response to Demand Agencies who saw overall increase of people in need Agencies unable to meet demand due to lack of resources Agencies who reported not having enough food to meet growing demand Agencies who reported decrease in total funding and food sources Brooklyn 91.5% 48.4% 50.0% 55.1% The Bronx 85.4% 56.5% 56.4% 42.6% Manhattan 70.3% 34.6% 35.2% 61.1% Queens 86.3% 42.5% 43.2% 54.5% Staten Island 83.3% % 56.7% 28

30 Bronx-Specific Results We really need more food. Jose Vargas, Los Redimidos Pol la Sangre Cristo Food Security Data percent one in three of Bronx residents lived in food insecure households in In the time period, when 28.4 percent one in four Bronx residents were food insecure. That increase in 7.75 percentage points equals an overall increase of 27 percent in overall food insecurity percent nearly one half of Bronx children lived in food insecure homes in In the time period, when 28.4 percent one in four Bronx children were food insecure. That increase in percentage points equals an overall increase of 44 percent in child food insecurity percent one in five of Bronx seniors lived in food insecure homes in In the time period, when percent also one in five Bronx seniors were food insecure. That decrease in 1.22 percentage points equals a decrease of 6 percent in senior food insecurity. Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Data 56.4 percent of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand percent of responding agencies reported that if they received more food, they would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration, staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food they distribute; just 3.1 percent of responding agencies believed that they would not have the capacity to accommodate an increase in the amount of food they distribute percent of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people they served over the past year percent reported a big increase percent: People with paid work - 80 percent: Families with children percent: Immigrants percent: Seniors (age 60 and older) percent: Homeless 42.6 percent of responding agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food in the last 12 months; 18.5 percent reported a big decrease percent of responding agencies reported a decrease in private funding for food in the last 12 months; 18.5 percent reported a big decrease percent of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in

31 55.6 percent of responding agencies reported using personal money always/often/sometimes to support their feeding programs percent of responding agencies reported the need for more long-term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.); 26.4 percent of responding agencies reported a need for both skilled and unskilled volunteers (serving meals or packing pantry bags). 30

32 Brooklyn-Specific Results We just need more money and more food. Bela, Chrome Heights Central Food Security Data percent one in eight of Brooklyn residents lived in food insecure households in In the time period, when percent one in nine Brooklyn residents were food insecure. That increase in 1.69 percentage points equals an overall increase of 15 percent in overall food insecurity percent one in seven of Brooklyn children lived in food insecure homes in In the time period, when percent one in seven Brooklyn children were food insecure. That increase in.47 percentage points equals an overall increase of 3 percent in child food insecurity percent one in eight of Brooklyn seniors lived in food insecure homes in In the time period, when 9.26 percent one in ten Brooklyn seniors were food insecure. That increase in 4.01 percentage points equals an overall increase of 43 percent. Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Data 50 percent of responding agencies reported not having enough food to meet current demand percent of responding agencies reported that if they received more food, they would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration, staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food they distribute; 2.9 percent of responding agencies believed that they would not have the capacity to accommodate an increase in the amount of food they distribute percent of responding agencies reported an increase in the number of people they served over the past year percent reported a big increase percent: People with paid work - 70 percent: Families with children percent: Immigrants percent: Seniors (age 60 and older) percent: Homeless 55.1 percent of responding agencies reported a decrease in government/public funding for food in the last 12 months percent of responding agencies reported a decrease in private funding for food in the last 12 months; 14.5 percent reported a big decrease percent of responding agencies reported having to turn away clients, have reduced the amount of food distributed to each person, or have limited hours of operation because of a lack of resources in