Annual Hunger Survey: Not Too Big To Fail

1

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……….…………………………………………………………………………………. Page 5

Message from the Executive Director……………………………………………………………….. Page 8

Survey Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 11

Federal Citywide Food Insecurity Analysis………………………………………………………… Page 14

2011 Citywide Survey Results…………………………………………………………………………… Page 16

Year‐to‐Year Comparisons………………………………………………………………………………… Page 18

Borough Survey Comparisons…..………………………………………………………………………. Page 19

Bronx Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 20

Brooklyn Results………………………………………………………………………………………………. Page 21

Manhattan Results…………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 22

Queens Results………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 23

Staten Island Results………………………………………………………………………………………... Page 24

Findings on Volunteer Needs ……………………………………………………………………………. Page 25

Appendix 1 – Selected Quotes from Emergency Food Providers……………………….. Page 26

Appendix 2 – 2011 Survey Letter & Questionnaire……………………………………………. Page 29

Appendix 3 – List of Emergency Food Provider Closures in 2011……………………….. Page 35

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………….. Page 36

3

Executive Summary

This report is based on two entirely different sets of data. The first set is federal food insecurity/hunger data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and analyzed by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH), and is based on three‐year averages, with the most recent year being 2010. The second set is data collected by NYCCAH from a survey of the city’s soup kitchens and food pantries, with information collected in the fall of 2011.

Federal Food Insecurity Data

One in Six New York City Residents – 1.47 Million – Are Food Insecure In 2008‐2010, an estimated average of 1.47 million New Yorkers lived in food insecure homes, which equals 17 percent (or one in six) people. That figure represents a 33 percent increase over the 2005‐2007 time period, when 946,000 New Yorkers were food insecure. In comparison, 1.6 million New York residents now live below the meager federal poverty line ($18,310 for a family of three), which proves that food insecurity and hunger are among the most severe impacts upon many people that live in poverty.

One in Four New York City Children – Nearly Half a Million – Live in Food Insecure Homes In 2008‐2010, 474,000 New York City children lived in food insecure homes, in which the family could not afford a full supply of food throughout the year. This number represented 25 percent (or one in four) of the city’s children and is a 37 percent increase over the 2005‐2007 time frame, when 294,000 children lived in such households or 15 percent (one in seven).

NUMBER of New Yorkers Food Insecure

1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 2005-2007

1,000,000

2008-2010 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Tota l Num be r of NYC Re side nts Living in Food Inse cure House holds

Tota l Num be r of NYC Childre n Living in Food Inse cure House holds

4

PERCENTAGE of New Yorkers Food Insecure

25 20 15 2005-2007

10

2008-2010

5 0

% of Total NYC Residents % of NYC Children Living in Living in Food Insecure Food Insecure Households Households

*Because of an inadequate sample size, federal food insecurity data is not statistically significant below the city level; therefore this information is not available at the borough or neighborhood level.

Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Data

Food Agencies Are Serving Record Numbers of People The number of people served at New York City’s more than 1,100 soup kitchens and food pantries increased by an estimated 12 percent in 2011, on top of a seven percent increase in 2010, and a 21 percent increase in 2009. Fully 89 percent of agencies said they are feeding more people in 2011 than in 2010, with 52 percent saying the number of people they are feeding had increased “greatly.”

Government and Private Cut‐Backs Forced Agencies to Close or Reduce Services This year, 79 percent of agencies suffered from a loss of government food and funding. One of the reasons that number is so high is that the federal Emergency Food and Shelter Program – which funds hundreds of city pantries and kitchens, as well as homelessness‐prevention efforts – was cut by 40 percent as part of the budget deal that President Barack Obama struck with the Congressional leadership to keep the federal government running in 2011. In New York City, those cuts resulted in a funding reduction from $5.1 million to $3.5 million. To make matters worse, 55 percent of city pantries and kitchens obtained fewer private donations. Largely as a result of these cuts, many agencies were forced to close down entirely and the ones able to stay open often had to cut back on their services. The Coalition found that at least 47 feeding programs citywide have shut down entirely over the past few years. While leadership transitions and management challenges certainly contributed to some agencies’ closures, there is very little doubt that cuts in government funding was the largest single reason. Fifty‐eight percent of pantries and kitchens reported having to turn away clients, reduce their portion sizes, or limit their hours of operation in 2011, an increase from the 51 percent rate in 2010, and the 55 percent rate in 2009. However, the rate is still lower than the Coalition found in 2008 (69 percent), before extra funding for agencies was provided by the federal stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

5

% NYC Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens Forced to Ration Food 70

65

60 % NYC Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens Forced to Ration Food

55 50

45 Year 2008

Year 2009

Year 2010

Year 2011

Food Stamps/SNAP Program Prevented Mass Starvation Not only did ARRA provide a one‐year boost in funding for pantries and kitchens, it provided a multi‐year funding increase for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or “SNAP,” formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). SNAP funding has also increased due to growing enrollment in the program, demonstrating that the program is working exactly as it was designed, as a counter‐cyclical entitlement program that increases when the economy worsens.

As of September 2011, 1.8 million New Yorkers received SNAP benefits. SNAP will provide an estimated $3.4 billion worth of food to low‐income families in New York City alone in 2011, a $1.5 billion jump over the funding in 2008. The average SNAP benefit in New York City in August of 2011 was $285 per month per household, which dwarfs what even the most generous food pantry or soup kitchen could distribute in a month to a family. There is no question that, without the $3.4 billion worth of food provided to low‐income families by SNAP and aid from other governmental nutrition assistance programs, local residents would be far more likely to face Darfur or North Korea‐like starvation.

Need for Long‐Term, Skilled Volunteers

This year’s survey also reinforced the need for long‐term, skilled volunteers at pantries and kitchens. Only 12 percent of feeding agencies reported that they needed only unskilled volunteers for serving, packing, and distributing food. By comparison, 47 percent of kitchens and pantries reported needing long‐term, skilled volunteers to assist with projects such as website development and grant‐writing. Tellingly, 41 percent of the agencies said they did not need any more volunteers at all, thereby bolstering NYCCAH’s long held belief that while increasing volunteerism may marginally aid the fight against hunger (and should surely be encouraged), such efforts are wholly inadequate and cannot substitute for national policies that ensure living wage jobs and an adequate government social safety net.

6

A Message from the Coalition’s Executive Director Charles Dickens would find today’s New York very familiar. Once again, we have a tale of two cities but this time, both of them are New York.

For one New York – billionaire New York – it was the best of times. According our analysis of Forbes data, the 57 area billionaires now have a net worth of $211 billion, an increase of $11 billion over last year. Their net worth now equals the combined annual income of more than four million average New York City families, and more than 14 million times what a minimum wage worker would earn working full‐time for a year.

Yet some elected officials are considering giving these same billionaires a further tax cut this year.

For the other New York – impoverished New York – it was the worst of times. Median household income here is now $48,743, which is five percent lower than in 2007. From 2009 to 2010, 75,000 city residents fell below the meager federal poverty line ($18,310 for a family of three), the largest yearly hike in two decades. The total population of poor New Yorkers is now 1.6 million, equaling 20.1 percent of the total population – or one in five. The population of New Yorkers in poverty is now greater than the entire population of Philadelphia.

Since the main cause of hunger is poverty, it is no wonder that 1.4 million New York City residents – or one in six – now live in homes that suffer from food insecurity, which means they can’t always afford enough food. An astonishing 474,000 city children – one in four – live in such food insecure households.

Fully 89 percent of the city’s 1,100 or so food pantries and soup kitchens reported to us that they are feeding more people in 2011 than in 2010. They reported feeding an estimated 12 percent more people in 2011, on top of a seven percent increase in 2010 and a 21 percent increase in 2009.

The only reason that hunger didn’t increase even faster was that there was significantly greater participation in the SNAP program and, thanks to the federal stimulus/recovery bill of 2009 – the average benefit size was larger. About 1.8 million New Yorkers currently receive SNAP benefits.

This program provides approximately $3.4 billion – yes, billion – to low‐income families to help them both stave off hunger and improve their ability to purchase healthier foods.

Not only that, because federal SNAP benefits are redeemed at private sector food stores, this additional spending creates significant numbers of jobs citywide providing a much‐needed boost to the local economy.

7

While millions of New Yorkers were at the edge of an economic cliff, with many being pushed off into hunger, the only reason more didn’t fall was the growth of federal SNAP benefits.

But even SNAP isn’t enough. For those struggling New Yorkers for whom SNAP benefits are insufficient, and for those who are either ineligible for SNAP or discouraged from obtaining it by City‐imposed barriers, the more than 1,100 New York City food pantries and soup kitchens are the last line of defense against hunger. But unfortunately, due to the economic downturn, 57 percent of these emergency feeding groups reported a decrease in private sector food and monetary donations. That’s why government funding for these organizations is more important than ever.

Yet precisely at the time when our elected officials should be increasing money for the SNAP program and also for food pantries and kitchens, they are, in fact, slashing them. Last year President Obama and Congress agreed to cut SNAP funding by phasing‐out the stimulus‐based increases earlier than planned. They also cut funding for the incredibly‐effective Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which provides healthy supplemental food to pregnant women and small children. As part of the budget deal that President Obama struck with the Congressional leadership to keep the federal government running in 2011, the main federal program that provides money to soup kitchens and food pantries, the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program, was just cut by 40 percent. In New York City, those cuts resulted in a reduction in funding for emergency feeding programs from $5.1 million to $3.5 million. It is no wonder that 79 percent of the food pantries and kitchens in this survey reported a reduction in government funding.

Despite the fact that this is the richest city in the history of the world, our survey found that 47 agencies citywide were actually forced to close their doors due to a variety of reasons, including these serious funding cuts. To makes matters worse, 58 percent of New York City pantries and kitchens that managed to stay in business were forced to reduce portion sizes, reduce hours of operation, or turn away hungry families in 2011.

Now Congress is – unconscionably – considering a plan to take billions of dollars more out of SNAP, with an annual cut of $150 million in New York State alone. Have they no shame?

Our elected officials need to better understand that these cuts have real‐life impacts on real‐life people and community‐based programs. How is it that our leaders in Washington find Wall Street firms “too big to fail,” but lose so little sleep allowing American children to go without food and soup kitchens and food pantries to close?

This is madness. The fact that our leaders are cutting programs for hungry New Yorkers in order to give billionaires ever greater tax cuts further proves that our current governmental policies are thoroughly unhinged, and devoid of either common sense or basic moral decency. Finally, this insanity provides further proof of why our current system of under‐funded, under‐coordinated, under‐staffed private charities can't possible substitute for a guaranteed government safety net.

However, there’s hope…but only if we, as a society, fight back.

8

As Frederick Douglass famously said, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress…Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.”

Join with us and fight back by taking action. You can help by going to our website at www.nyccah.org and signing up to participate in our Action Alerts. You can also donate to our advocacy efforts online.

America has faced tough times before, but we’ve always joined together as a country to build social movements that have achieved historic reforms. We can do it again. Conditions that were once thought to be inevitable later became unthinkable. Struggling together, Americans built broad‐based movements to outlaw slavery and child labor. The time is long overdue for us to band together once more to make hunger in America also unthinkable.

Sincerely,

Joel Berg, Executive Director New York City Coalition Against Hunger

9

Report Methodology

This report is based on two entirely different sets of data. The first is federal food insecurity/hunger data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the USDA, and analyzed by the Coalition, and is based on three year averages, with the most recent year being 2010. The second set of data was collected by the Coalition in the fall of 2011, from a survey of the city’s soup kitchens and food pantries.

Federal Food Insecurity Data Methodology

Data for this section of the report comes from an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey. USDA sponsors the annual survey and USDA’s Economic Research Service compiles and analyzes the responses. The 2010 food security survey covered 44,757 households nationwide, comprising a representative sample of the U.S. civilian population of 119 million households. The food security survey asked one adult respondent in each household a series of questions about experiences and behaviors that indicate food insecurity, such as being unable to afford balanced meals, cutting the size of meals because of too little money for food, or being hungry because of too little money for food. The food security status of the household was assigned based on the number of food insecure conditions reported. The raw data was collected from thousands of households in New York City, and the weighted responses were calculated by NYCCAH. Because of an inadequate sample size, federal food insecurity data is not statistically significant below the city level, therefore further analysis at the borough or neighborhood level is not possible.

According to USDA, the food security status of each interviewed household is determined by the number of food insecure conditions and behaviors the household reports. Households are classified as food secure if they report no food insecure conditions or if they report only one or two food insecure conditions. USDA defines “food insecure” as the condition under which: “…at least some time during the year the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food.”

Food insecure households are further classified as having either low food security or very low food security. The very low food security category identifies households in which food intake of one or more members was reduced and eating patterns disrupted because of insufficient money and other resources for food. Low and very low food security differ in the extent and character of the adjustments the household makes to its eating patterns and food intake. Households classified as having low food security have reported multiple indications of food access problems, but typically have reported few, if any, indications of reduced food intake.

Those classified as having very low food security have reported multiple indications of reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns due to inadequate resources for food. In most, but not all households with very low food security, the survey respondent reported that he or she was hungry at some time during the year, but did not eat because there was not enough money for food.

10

Coalition Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Data Methodology

The 2011 questionnaire (Appendix 2) was originally mailed and e‐mailed to a list of 1,167 agencies in New York City that were believed to operate food pantries, soup kitchens, and/or some variety of emergency food program (EFP). This list was originally created through a combination of the Coalition’s existing EFP database, member agency rosters maintained by the Food Bank for New York City and City Harvest, agencies that have previously worked with NYCCAH, and recipients of New York State’s HPNAP/EFAP funding streams.

Following the original request for information, the Coalition made follow‐up visits, phone calls, faxes and sent electronic correspondence to as many agencies as possible in order to solicit responses. Agencies were encouraged to either mail/fax the questionnaire to the Coalition, or to complete it online using Survey Monkey, a web‐based data collection service. In this sense, sampling was only partly random because agencies having pre‐existing relationships with the Coalition received more encouragement to complete the survey. However, the breadth of survey responses, the consistency of the findings with previous surveys conducted by the Coalition and other organizations, and the number of responses from agencies having no pre‐existing relationship with the Coalition assured us that this sample set was representative.

While we were successful at securing an adequate sample size from the returned surveys, there was a slight decrease in the number of responses compared to last year. Based on what we knew to be an increase in clientele at a large number of pantries and kitchens and our knowledge that some emergency feeding programs were no longer in operation, a slightly lower response rate was anticipated. In fact, to bring attention to this trend, a new question was added to this year’s survey – “Do you know of any food pantries, soup kitchens, or brown bag programs that shut down or closed their doors in the last year? Yes No.”

All paper surveys were entered into the Survey Monkey database by Coalition staff and volunteers.

In total, 239 agencies returned surveys. Responding agencies who do not offer food to the public (either by walk‐in or referral) were removed from subsequent analysis, leaving 216 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 216 responses out of a list of 1,167 agencies, or 20 percent.

However, for the one question in which the survey measures the percentage of annual change in the number of people being served, only 120 agencies answered with data that was usable, so the results for that one question use a smaller sample size. Although the sample size for this particular question is statistically significant on the citywide level, because it is not statistically significant on a smaller level, we do not report borough‐level data for the rate of annual change in people being served.

Also, 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.

11

Respondents Compared to Total Agencies

Respondents/ Total Agencies Bronx 44/209 Brooklyn 67/316 Manhattan 75/269 Queens 53/209 Staten Island 13/40

Break‐down of Responding Agencies: Food Pantry 62% Soup Kitchen 13.4% Soup Kitchen & Food Pantry 22.1% Previously operated a program 1.2% but closed this past year Other (mobile soup kitchen, 9.1% brown bag program, or shelter)

% Response 21% 21.2% 27.9% 25.4% 32.5%

Seventy percent of respondents identified themselves as faith‐based, religiously affiliated, or physically housed in a religious institution.

In order to determine the number of EFP closures in the past few years, Coalition staff used a number of methods – including a combination of returned mailings, follow‐up calls, Internet searches, and site visits – to determine, as best as possible that sites a) did indeed previously have a feeding program and b) that the program was now shut down, either temporarily or permanently.

12

Federal Food Insecurity Data for New York City

Federal Food Insecurity Data

One in Six New York City Residents – 1.47 Million – Are Food Insecure In 2008‐2010, an estimated average of 1.47 million New Yorkers lived in food insecure homes, which equals 17 percent (or one in six) people. That figure represents a 33 percent increase over the 2005‐2007 time period, when 946,000 New Yorkers were food insecure. In comparison, 1.6 million New York City residents lived below the meager federal poverty line ($18,310 for a family of three), which proves that food insecurity and hunger are among the most severe impacts upon many people that live in poverty.

One in Four New York City Children – Nearly Half a Million – Live in Food Insecure Homes In 2008‐2010, 474,000 New York City children lived in food insecure homes, in which the family could not afford a full supply of food throughout the year. This number represented 25 percent (or one in four) of the city’s children and is a 37 percent increase over the 2005‐2007 time frame, when 294,000 children lived in such households or 15 percent (one in seven).

NUMBER of New Yorkers Food Insecure

1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 2005-2007

1,000,000

2008-2010 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Tota l Num be r of NYC Re side nts Living in Food Inse cure House holds

Tota l Num be r of NYC Childre n Living in Food Inse cure House holds

13

PERCENTAGE of New Yorkers Food Insecure

25 20 15 2005-2007

10

2008-2010

5 0

% of Total NYC Residents % of NYC Children Living in Living in Food Insecure Food Insecure Households Households

*Because of an inadequate sample size, federal food insecurity data is not statistically significant below the city level, therefore further analysis is not possible at the borough or neighborhood level.

Hundreds of Thousands of New Yorkers Suffer from the Most Severe Forms of Food Insecurity The above numbers represent “low” and “very low” food insecurity, meaning households with any type of food insecurity. We also isolated the most severe type of food insecurity, a subset of those larger numbers, which USDA now calls “very low food insecurity,” and which, until the Bush Administration, was labeled by USDA as “hunger. “ In 2008‐2010, 505,000 New Yorkers lived in homes with very low food security, representing six percent of all New York City residents.

In 2008‐2010, 144,000 city children lived in homes with very low food security, representing seven percent of all New York City children.

14

2011 Citywide Results of the Coalition’s Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen Survey

Food Agencies Are Serving Record Numbers of People The number of people served at New York City’s more than 1,100 soup kitchens and food pantries increased by an estimated 12 percent in 2011, on top of a seven percent increase in 2010, and a 21 percent increase in 2009. Fully 89 percent of agencies said they are feeding more people in 2011 than in 2010, with 52 percent saying the number of people they are feeding had increased “greatly.”

Government and Private Cuts Forced Agencies to Close or Reduce Services This year, 79 percent of agencies suffered a loss of government food and funding. One of the reasons that number is so high is that the federal Emergency Food and Shelter Program – which funds hundreds of city pantries and kitchens, as well as homelessness‐prevention efforts – was cut by 40 percent as part of the budget deal that President Barack Obama struck with the Congressional leadership to keep the government running in 2011. In New York City, those cuts resulted in a reduction in funding from $5.1 million to $3.5 million. To make matters worse, 55 percent of city pantries and kitchens obtained fewer private donations. Largely as a result of these cuts, many agencies were forced to close down entirely and the ones able to stay open often had to cut back on their services.

The Coalition found that at least 47 feeding programs citywide have shut down entirely over the past few years. While leadership transitions and management challenges certainly contributed to some agencies’ closures, there is very little doubt that cuts in government funding were the largest single reason.

Fifty‐eight percent of pantries and kitchens reported having to turn away clients, reduce their portion sizes, or limit their hours of operation in 2011, an increase from the 51 percent rate in 2010, and the 55 percent rate in 2009. However, the rate is still lower than the Coalition found in 2008 (69 percent), before extra funding for agencies was provided by the federal stimulus package also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). % NYC Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens Forced to Ration Food

70

65

60 % NYC Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens Forced to Ration Food

55 50

15

45 Year 2008

Year 2009

Year 2010

Year 2011

Some of the other citywide findings include: •

Sixty-two percent of agencies surveyed do not distribute enough food to meet current demand, up from 51 percent last year.

•

Eighty-seven percent of agencies that don’t distribute enough food to meet demand said that if they received more food, they would have enough institutional capacity to increase the amount of food distributed (while nine percent of respondents reported that even if they were to receive more food, they wouldn’t have the administrative capacity to distribute more).

•

Responding agencies reported seeing the fastest growing need for their services among families with children. Eighty percent of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of families with children over the past 12 months (versus four percent reporting a decrease, and 11 percent reporting no change).

•

Seventy-six percent of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of seniors over the past 12 months (versus five percent reporting a decrease and 13 percent reporting no change).

•

Fifty-five percent of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of people who had paid employment over the past 12 months (versus seven percent reporting a decrease and 13 percent reporting no change).

•

Fifty-seven percent of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of homeless people over the past 12 months (versus two percent reporting a decrease and 18 percent reporting no change).

•

Sixty-six percent of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of immigrants over the past 12 months (versus three percent reporting a decrease and 14 percent reporting no change).

•

Eighty-eight percent of responding agencies believe that their need will continue to increase in the next six months. Fifty percent of responding agencies believe it will increase “greatly.”

•

Fifty-two percent of responding agencies reported using their own personal money “often,” “always,” or “sometimes” to support their feeding programs.

16

Year‐to‐Year Comparisons

2011 % of responding programs that are 72% faith‐based, religiously affiliated, or physically located in a religious institution % of responding programs that are 14% soup kitchens only % of responding programs that are 66% food pantries only % of responding programs that are 23% both food pantries and soup kitchens % of responding agencies that don’t 62% have enough food to meet the current demand % of responding agencies forced to 58% ration food % of responding agencies at which 79% government money and food decreased in the past year % of responding agencies at which 74% overall money and food decreased in the past year % that received support from The 73 Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), funded by the federal government % that received support from the 46% Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which is funded by the federal government. % that received support from the 86% Hunger Prevention and Nutrition Assistance Program (HPNAP) program, which is state‐funded % that received support from the 73% Emergency Food Assistance Program (EFAP), which is City‐funded

2010 70%

2009 76%

2008 76%

13%

11%

11%

9%

10%

11%

64%

66%

70%

65%

65%

64%

21%

20%

17%

21%

18%

21%

51%

55%

67%

59%

47%

37%

51%

55%

69%

50%

44%

47%

63%

50%

72.3% 51%

40%

41%

58%

52%

718%

50%

41%

41%

77%

74%

77%

76%

81%

70%

54%

46%

39%

49%

45%

56%

84%

85%

84%

80%

81%

84%

73%

76%

77%

75%

73%

70%

2007 2006 2005 73% 74% 72%

17

2011 Borough Survey Comparisons

Agencies Forced to Ration Food, Turn Away Clients, or Reduce Hours in 2011 80 70 60

% Agencies

50 40 30 20 10 0 Bronx

Brroklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

Agencies Unable to Meet Demand in 2011 100 90 80

% Agencies

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bronx

Brroklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

Borough

18

Borough

The Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island

% of agencies at which demand for food increased 91% 90% 78% 96% 90%

% of agencies at which the amount of food was not enough to meet growing demand 74% 67% 44% 58% 100%

% of agencies forced to ration food by limiting portion size, reducing hours of operation, and/or turning people away 70% 66% 44% 60% 70.0%

19

Bronx Results

“The funding we receive is not enough to provide pantry weekly ; we have had to reduce the number of bags distributed weekly. The cost of food ordered is VERY EXPENSIVE so funding will not last for the full year; each monthly order is about $1000 and it is not enough to serve more than a few families. Funding will run out in about 7‐8 months or less.” ‐ D. Roberts, Director of Family Support Services, WHEDco

91.4% of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of people in the last 12 months. 62.9% said this number increased “greatly.”

48.6% of responding agencies reported that the number of families with children using their services increased “greatly,” and 24.2% said people using their services who have paid employment increased “greatly.”

88.2% of responding agencies believe that the need will continue to increase over the next six months. 55.9% of responding agencies believe it will increase “greatly.”

86.2% of responding agencies reported receiving less government food and money in the last 12 months (and 6.9% reported no change).

78.6% of responding agencies reported receiving less overall food and money in the last 12 months (and 7.1% reported no change).

74.3% of responding agencies reported being unable to distribute enough food to meet demand.

97% of responding agencies reported having to turn away hungry New Yorkers, cut portion sizes, and/or cut hours of operation in 2011.

30.1% of responding agencies reported using personal money “often” or “always” to support their feeding programs (55.6% do this “sometimes,” “often,” or “always”).

20

Brooklyn Results

“We have sustained substantial cuts to our government funding between 2010 and 2011, while seeing a steady increase in all our services. Once again, we have a government and legislation unwilling to prioritize and manage the billions of dollars at their disposal. In many cases, the same participants receiving the benefits of programs like ours are asked to shoulder the burden and responsibility of providing the services. We must hold those elected and appointed officials accountable to balance the nights of all rights and needs of all who live in New York City and New York State. Right now, we are at the cusp of a more coordinated and diversified movement and we in the emergency food world must seize the moment to act!”‐ Christy Robb, Director of Food Services, St. John’s Bread and Life

89.5% of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of people in the last 12 months. 58% said this number increased “greatly.”

46.4% of responding agencies reported that the number of families with children using their services increased “greatly,” and 46.4% also said seniors using their services increased “greatly.”

82.1% of responding agencies believe that the need will continue to increase in the next six months. 48.2% of responding agencies believe it will increase “greatly.”

74.5% of responding agencies reported receiving less government food and money in the last 12 months (and 10.3% reported no change).

75.5% of responding agencies reported receiving less overall food and money in the last 12 months (and 6.1% reported no change).

67.2% of responding agencies reported being unable to distribute enough food to meet demand.

65.5% of responding agencies reported having to turn away hungry New Yorkers, cut portion sizes, and/or cut hours of operation in 2011.

28.6% of responding agencies reported using personal money “often” or “always” to support their feeding programs (53.6% do this “sometimes,” “often,” or “always”).

21

Manhattan Results “Our food pantry, like many other emergency food programs in the city, experienced a perfect storm this year of continuing high demand, reduced government funding, and delays in food and funding. As a result, our pantry had near‐empty shelves more than once during the year ‐ something I'd never witnessed in my eleven years prior [doing this work]. Our programs, and our families, are truly hurting.” – Lucia Russett, Director of Advocacy, Little Sisters of the Assumption Family Health Services 78.3% of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of people in the last 12 months. 35% said this number increased “greatly.”

21.3% of responding agencies reported that the number of immigrants using their services increased “greatly,” and 22.2% also said families with children increased “greatly.”

85.1% of responding agencies believe that the need will continue to increase in the next six months. 40.4% of responding agencies believe it will increase “greatly.”

75% of responding agencies reported receiving less government food and money in the last 12 months (and 5% reported no change).

63.9% of responding agencies reported receiving less overall food and money in the last 12 months (and 11.1% reported no change).

43.8% of responding agencies reported being unable to distribute enough food to meet current demand.

43.5% of responding agencies reported having to turn away hungry New Yorkers, cut portion sizes, and/or cut hours of operation in 2011 because they lacked resources.

23.9% of responding agencies reported using personal money “often” or “always” to support their feeding programs (43.5% do this “sometimes,” “often,” or “always”).

22

Queens Results

“There has been a tremendous increase in the number of clients that we are serving in our community. I believe that the increase is largely due to the closing of food pantries in our Jamaica/Supthin Blvd. area. We are willing to extend our days and hours. Unfortunately, our supply cannot meet the demand. Considering the Pantry that has closed directly across the street from our church as well as a pantry down the street during the summer, this may be one of the reasons why our client service has increased.” – Stella Mercado, Pastor, Blanche Memorial Church

95.6% of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of people in the last 12 months. 51.1% said this number increased “greatly.”

46.5% of responding agencies reported that the number of families with children using their services increased “greatly,” and 68.9% also said seniors and immigrants using their services increased “greatly.”

93.5% of responding agencies believe that the need will continue to increase in the next six months. 45.7% of responding agencies believe it will increase “greatly.”

80% of responding agencies reported receiving less government food and money in the last 12 months (and 10% reported no change).

69.7% of responding agencies reported receiving less overall food and money in the last 12 months (and 6% reported no change).

57.8% of responding agencies reported being unable to distribute enough food to meet demand.

59.5% of responding agencies reported having to turn away hungry New Yorkers, cut portion sizes, and/or cut hours of operation in 2011.

10.3% of responding agencies reported using personal money “often” or “always” to support their feeding programs (55.6% do this “sometimes,” “often,” or “always”).

23

Staten Island Results

“Now a time of historic need … We have a serious and growing problem.” = Rev. Terry Troia, Project Hospitality

90% of responding agencies reported feeding an increased number of people in the last 12 months. 80% said this number increased “greatly.”

70% of responding agencies reported that the number of families with children using their services increased “greatly.”

100% of responding agencies believe that the need will continue to increase in the next six months. 80% of responding agencies believe it will increase “greatly.”

100% of responding agencies reported receiving less government food and money in the last 12 months (and 0% reported no change).

100% of responding agencies reported receiving less overall food and money in the last 12 months, up from 50% reported last year (and 0% reported no change in the last 12 months).

100% of responding agencies reported being unable to distribute enough food to meet the demand.

70% of responding agencies reported having to turn away hungry New Yorkers, cut portion sizes, and/or cut hours of operation in 2011.

10% of responding agencies reported using personal money “often” or “always” to support their feeding programs (60% do this “sometimes,” “often,” or “always”).

24

Findings on Agency Volunteer Needs

“Web design; I feel like we are in the 1800's as we do not have an able, up‐to‐date website. A volunteer who could do this would be great.” ‐ Jacqueline Eradiri, Director, Ridgewood Older Adult Center

“We need professional volunteers in computer work to help us with accounting records and legal assistance for clients.” – Jane W. Robinson, Administrator, Community Meals Program at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church

Every year between October and December, people think of volunteering at food pantries and soup kitchens to feed the hungry during the holidays. This year’s survey of emergency food providers reinforced the Coalition’s emphasis that while volunteerism is necessary, what pantries and kitchens really need are skilled volunteers to help with such tasks as website design, grant writing, and computer assistance throughout the year.

A mere 12 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, 47 percent of responding agencies reported needing long‐term skilled volunteers. Thus, if New Yorkers gave their time and skills to pantries and kitchens year‐round – and/or aided policy advocacy efforts – emergency food providers would be better able to assist hungry families.

Tellingly, 41 percent of the agencies said they did not need any more volunteers at all, thereby bolstering Micah’s long held belief that while increasing volunteerism cam marginally aid the fight against hunger (and should surely be encouraged), such efforts are wholly inadequate and cannot substitute for national policies that ensure living wage jobs and an adequate government social safety net.

Volunteer Needs Among Emergency Food Providers

% Do Not Ne e d Volunte e rs, 41

% Ne e d Skille d Volunte e rs, 47

% Ne e d Only Unskille d Volunte e rs, 12

25

Appendix 1: Selected Quotes from Survey Respondents

Bronx

Because of decreases in TEFAP food deliveries and HPNAP funds we will not be able to open each Friday. Our ability to open will be based on our inventory. – Evelyn McCarty, Executive Director, St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church

This year getting food from TEFAP has been a great disappointment. We have had to spend money every week to make sure we can give good bags to families. It can be a little embarrassing having people line up in front of the pantry from 3:00 am and we open at 9:00am. Just to give them a few cans and now protein. Even the delivery men have been asking us, ‘why are you guys not getting enough food?’ We were told there is food stacked to the ceiling no reason we are not able to order any of it under TEFAP. This year has been the worse we thought we might have to close our doors.

– April Alexander, Coordinator, Second Chance Christian Center

The number of people who come from distant parts of the Bronx has greatly increased. Sometimes they get to the site late when the bags have all been distributed and they get disappointed. If we had more food we would be able to pack extra bags for such people and their transport fare would not have been wasted. Volunteers for the program come from the community and we always have new people who want to be invited or chosen as volunteers.” – Felicia Omeokwe,Food Program Coordinator, Vineyard Food Pantry

Brooklyn

In order not to turn any clients away, we are forced to reduce the amount of food distributed to each person. ‐ Mireille Massac, Public Relations & Pantry Coordinator, CDSC Emergency Food Pantry

Need skilled volunteers to help with preparing &and cooking the food. Help with fundraising, grant writing and web design.” – Dorothy Crawford, Director, Other People in Need, Inc.

Every week we have an average of ten new persons registering for food. In addition to funding we ask our congregation to make donations. This year it seems as if our HPNAP funding will be exhausted before June 2012. In the past TEFAP supplemented our pantry. This year the Food Bank does not have many items. HUNGER IS REAL IN THIS CITY. – Beverly Smith Hutson, Food Program Coordinator, Church of St. Mark Food Pantry

26

We are limited with food because we are a KOSHER agency serving only kosher which we have limited resources and limited access to food…Poor people are expecting way more than that. ‐ Etty Friedman, Director of Haber House Senior Center, JCCGCI

We understand our present economic situation but our community is in need of more food especially meat. – Diana Nelson, Executive Director, Hope Center Development Corporation

Manhattan While we experienced only a moderate decrease in food funding from FY10 to FY11, we anticipate a much larger decrease in FY12. We've already been notified by our HPNAP/ESFP conduit, Catholic Charities, that their HPNAP allocation was decreased by approx. 50% for this year. We have not yet received an allocation from them but assume a similar decrease in our own budget (resulting in an $8000‐10,000 decrease). We do not foresee large increases in our other sources to offset this amount… If our numbers continue to increase and our funding continues to decrease, we will have a significant challenge maintaining our programs. – Cassandra Agredo, Director, Xavier Mission

It has always been a pleasure to help the Washington Heights ‐ Inwood … However, the need for support from clients has greatly increased to a level that funding received from current sources does not meet somewhat our demand. Clientele need continues to grow to the extent that individuals are traveling from all boroughs for a bag of food. The government needs to step in and prioritize on what is really important. – JoAnn Santiago, Administrative Director, Fresh Youth Initiatives/Helping Hands Food Pantry

Our main problem is moderate increase in number of people served, which is growing every month, and dramatic cuts in funding. – Janet Dorman, Director, St. Mary’s Church Food Pantry and Soup Kitchen

Queens

The demand has gone up for food in our area. What will happen in the next three months with the demands so great? We will not be able to give out food every week as we have done since 2003, if we do not receive more help. We will be force to open only once a month if more food is not sent to our pantry. What shall we do? – Christine Williams, Assistant, Holy Ghost Upper Room Filling Station Ministry, Inc. Need more quality food especially protein (meat and vegetables). Need assistance in writing, identifying and applying for grants. This would definitely enable us to obtain quality food on a more consistence basis, and have our clients receiving food for a minimum of three days. We have also observed that many clients having diabetes and high blood pressure are more frustrated over the high sodium contents of the food given. – Douglas Falconer, Director of Food Program, Hollis Avenue Congregational Church Food Pantry

The numbers needing our services has increased largely and government funding sources have decreased making it much harder to serve those in need. – Swami Durga Das, Executive Director, The River Fund New York 27

Appendix 2: Survey Letter and Questionnaire

2011 Survey of NYC Food Pantries and Soup Kitchens Please consider completing this survey ONLINE www.nyccah.org/survey.

It’s quicker, easier and takes less time than filing paper forms.

If you do not know the answer to any question or part of a question, please check “unsure” or eave blank. Otherwise, return this completed survey by October 21st to the person who brought it to you, or mail it to NYCCAH, 50 Broad St, Suite 1520, New York, NY 10004, or fax it to 212.825.0267.

Questions? Call us at 212.825.0028, ext. 212.

Section 1: Preferred Contact Information

     

1.) What type of food program do you run? (Check ONE) Soup kitchen

Food pantry

Both soup kitchen & food pantry Other type of emergency food program (explain) _______________________ We have never run a feeding program (if you check this box, we’ll take you off our list) We previously ran a feeding program and it closed on (date) __________________

2.) Your name: ____________________________________________

3.) Your title / role: _________________________________________

4.) Your food program / agency formal name: ______________________________________

5.) Where do you serve or distribute food? (if different from your mailing address)

Street address: ______________________________

City: _____________________, State: __NY__ Zip: _________________

6.) Phone number of agency / program: ‐

‐

‐

7.) Fax Number of agency / program: ‐

8.) Email Address: ____________________________________________________________

9.) Website Address: __________________________________________________________

28

    

 

   

10.) In what borough do you serve or distribute food?

Manhattan Brooklyn Bronx Queens Staten Island

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

Same Different

12.) If you answered DIFFERENT ‐ what is your agency / program mailing address?

Address: __________________________________________________

City: _____________________, State: ____ __ Zip: ________________

Phone: _______________________ Fax: ______________________

13.) Do you know of any food pantries, soup kitchens, or brown bag programs that shut down or closed their doors in the last year? __Yes __ No

If yes, please provide any information on name(s), location(s), and any other contact information on the program(s) if available: __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Section 2: Basic Program Information___________________________________________

14.) Is your food program faith‐based, religiously affiliated, or physically located in a religious institution (like a church, mosque or synagogue)?

Yes No

15.) Is your food program open to the public (either by walk‐in or referral)?

Yes No 29

  

  

Section 3: Program Demand___________________________________________________

16.) Does your program currently distribute enough food to meet demand? (Check ONE) YES, we distribute enough food to meet our current demand.

NO, we don’t distribute enough food to meet our current demand.

Unsure

17.) If you answered “No” above, which of the following statements best describes your current situation? (Check ONE) If we received more food, we would have enough capacity (storage space, refrigeration, staff, and/or volunteers) to increase the amount of food we distribute.

Even if we received more food, we would not have enough capacity to increase the amount of food we distribute.

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

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

In the last year…

(Oct 2010 thru Sept 2011) Overall number of people needing food

Greatly Somewhat decreased decreased

No change

Somewhat increased

Greatly Unsure increased

Families with children

Senior citizens (age 65+)

Immigrants

Homeless people People with paid employment

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

Time period

Total

All of 2009

All of 2010

September 2010

The first 6 months of 2011

September 2011

Expected estimate for ALL of 2011

20.) Soup Kitchens ONLY: How many meals did you provide?

30

Time period All of 2009

Total

All of 2010 September 2010

The first 6 months of 2011

September 2011 Expected estimate for ALL of 2011

21.) In order to answer the previous questions, how did you get your answers?



A count of non‐duplicate individuals (only one person is counted even if they receive food more than one time)



A count of the total people served (an individual may be counted more than once) 22.) Were you forced to turn people away, reduce the amount of food distributed per person, or limit your hours of operation because you lacked enough resources?

At any time in 2010 

Yes 

No 

Unsure

At any time in 2011 

Yes 

No 

Unsure

23.) If you were forced to ‐ how many people do you estimate were turned away at your EFP? Time period

Total

2010

First six months of 2011

Estimate for ALL of 2011

24.) How do you think the demand for food at your program will change in the next six months?

Only check ONE box.

Will greatly increase Will increase somewhat Will stay about the same Will decrease somewhat Will greatly decrease Unsure

31

Section 4: Program Resources_________________________________________________

25.) How have your resources changed in LAST YEAR (October 2010 thru September 2011)?

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

Greatly decreased

Somewhat decreased

No change

Somewhat increased

Greatly increased

Unsure / Don’t know

Government/Public Funding for Food

Private Funding for Food

TOTAL Funding for Food

Paid staff

Unpaid staff / volunteers

26.) Does your program currently receive food or funding from any of the following sources?

Yes No Unsure EFAP (NYC) Increase Decrease Stay Same If so, did this funding increase of decrease in the last year?

2010 $________ 2011 $________ HPNAP (NY State) awarded thru Food Bank, Yes No Unsure United Way, Catholic Charities, or other sources.

Increase Decrease Stay Same If so, did this funding increase or decrease in the 2010 $________ 2011 $________ last year?

Yes No Unsure TEFAP (Federal) administered by Food Bank.

Increase Decrease Stay Same If so, did this funding increase or decrease in the last year?

2010 $________ 2011 $________ FEMA Emergency Food & Shelter Program (EFSP) ‐ If so, did this funding increase of decrease in the last year?

Yes No Unsure Increase Decrease Stay Same 2010 $ ________ 2011$_______lbs

27.) Which best describes your need for volunteers? CHECK ONE:

 We already have enough volunteers for unskilled tasks (serving meals or packing pantry bags) but NEED MORE LONG‐TERM SKILLED VOLUNTEERS for tasks such as accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.

 We need BOTH long‐term skilled volunteers (accounting, fundraising, web design, legal assistance, etc.) AND help serving meals/packing pantry bags.

32



We need volunteers for unskilled tasks like serving meals or packing pantry bags and have no need for any long‐term skilled volunteers.

 We don’t need any more volunteers at this time.

28.) How often do you or your staff spend personal money on your food program? (Check ONE)

     

     

Never

Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Unsure / Don’t know

29.) Would you like someone from NYCCAH to contact you about getting more volunteers?

Yes No

30.) What is your preferred form of communication from NYCCAH? Email Hard copy/Mail Fax All of the above

Section 5: Other Comments___________________________________________________

32.) Talk to us ‐ feel free to attach another sheet of paper if necessary.



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

THANK YOU!

33

Appendix 3: List of Feeding Program Closures/Suspensions During the Past Few Years

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

American Community House Inc., 708 Broadway, 8th Fl., NY, NY 10003 Back to Jerusalem Pentecostal Church, 1378 Boston Rd., Bronx, NY 10456 Bea Fuchs Ministries, Inc., 38‐78 13th St., Queens, NY 11101 Bronx JCC‐Allerton Neighborhood Food Pantry, 2508 Barker Ave., Bronx, NY 10467 Brooklyn Tabernacle Deliverance Center, 600 Lafayette Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11216 Calvary Food Pantry, 61 21st St., NY, NY 10010 Cath. Char./Rusty Staub Mobile Food Pantry (St. Peter's), 53 St. Marks Pl., SI, NY 10301 Cath. Char./Rusty Staub Mobile Food Pantry (St. Paul's), 145 Clinton Ave., SI, NY 10301 Claddagh INN, 73‐14 Rockaway Beach Blvd., Queens, NY 11692 Emmanuel Pentecostal Church of Love, 549 Gates Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11216 Faith Mission Christian Fellowship, 160‐164 W. 129th St., NY, NY 10027 Faith Pentecostal Apostolic Healing Temple, 1024 E. 217th St., Bronx, NY 10469 First Baptist Church in Pierrepont St., 360 Schermerhorn St., Brooklyn, NY 11217 Fordham Lutheran Church Food Pantry, 2427 Morris Ave., Bronx, NY 10468 Fort Greene Food Pantry/Queen of All Saints, 300 Vanderbilt Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11205 FROST'D Mobile Distribution, 224 W. 30th St., Ste. 901, NY, NY 10001 Greater Bethel Ministries, 207‐14 Hollis Ave., Queens, NY 11429 Greater St. Stephens Missionary Baptist Church, 121‐17 Sutphin Blvd., Jamaica, NY 11434 HANAC Ravenswood NORC/RISE, 34‐35 A 12th St., Long Island City, NY 11106 Hanson Place United Methodist Church, 144 St Felix St., Brooklyn, NY 11217 Highbridge Advisory Council, 1181 Nelson Ave., Bronx, NY 10452 Imani House, 76A 5th Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11217 Internat’l Evangelistic Women's & Workers, 481 Washington Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11238 John Charles Garvin Memorial Fund, 160 Putnam Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11216 Just Shall Live By Faith Church, 214‐13 Jamaica Ave., Queens, NY 11428 La Cocina del Pueblo, 66 Moore St., Brooklyn, NY 11206 Liberation Healing Pentecostal Church, 145 E. 117 St., NY, NY 10035 Loyola Baptist Church, 2015 Bruckner Blvd., Bronx, NY 10472 More Than Food Inc., 892 Putnam Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11221 Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church, 30 W. 126th St., NY, NY 10027 Muslim Women's Insitute for Research and Development, 13632 Odgen Ave., Bronx, NY 10452 New Brighton Community LDC, 350 St. Marks Pl. #108, Staten Island, NY 10301 Project Reach Out, 589 Amsterdam Ave., NY, NY 10024 Quitona Community Coalition, 973 E. 80th St., Bronx, NY 10457 Reality House, 637 W. 125th St. , NY, NY 10027 Scan N.Y., 1377 Jerome Ave., Bronx, NY 10452 SCAN New York, 207 E. 27th St. , NY, NY 10016 Segunda Mission Jerusalem, 3138 Webster Ave., Bronx, NY 10467 Springfield Missionary Baptist Church, 227 Lenox Ave., NY, NY 10027 St. Bartholomew, 43‐22 Ithaca St., Queens, NY 11373 St. George's, 661 Willett Rd., Bronx, NY 10467 St. Paul Baptist Church, 249 W. 132nd St., NY, NY 10027 St. Paul's Baptist Church of Jamaica, Queens Village Station P.O. Box 448, Jamaica, NY11427 The Momentum Project‐Immaculate Conception, 601 Melrose, Bronx, NY 10455 United Methodist Center, 1649 Smith Place, Queens, NY 11691 Universal Love Peace and Joy, 266 E. 98th St., Brooklyn, NY 11212 Yemaya Lower East Side Food Pantry, 18 Bleecker St. NY, NY 10012

34

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we thank the hundreds of soup kitchens and food pantries that took great care and time to answer our survey.

The Coalition Against Hunger is especially grateful to volunteers who dedicated long hours to helping us mail this survey: Janet Williams Matt Blakeley Lindsay Perry Joseph Kleing John Kim Nicole Skursky Guy Blelloch Claire Shanahan Erica Jenkins

A very special thanks to the Coalition’s Year Nine AmeriCorps*VISTA Team, without whom this survey work would not have been completed: Jessika Carney K.C. Hunt Andrew Lobo Charles Yoo Colleen Pesci Grace Perry Jannelle McCoy Karen Law Kathleen Oswald Shayla Nastasi Stefana Soitos

This report features city, federal, and survey data compiled by Coalition staff: Joel Berg, Executive Director Theresa Hassler, Dir. of Communications, Govt. Relations, and Community Organizing Reggie Miller, VISTA Coordinator

A very special thank you to the entire NYCCAH staff and to Elena Albright, Lori Azim, and Alexandra Yannias, who also helped with this effort.

The New York City Coalition Against Hunger’s Board of Directors: Timothy Brosnan ‐ Chair Daniel B. Ripps ‐ Vice Chair Christopher G. Karagheuzoff, Esq. ‐ Secretary Jeffrey Nichols, M.D. ‐ Treasurer Maureen Fergus Sheehan ‐ Member Peter Ligh, Esq. ‐ Member Melony Samuels, PhD. ‐ Member Angela Doolan, Esq. – Member

35