Welfare Reform and Food Assistance Community Food Security Programs Improve Food Access

Linda Scott Kantor (202) 694-5456 [email protected]

he Federal nutrition assistance community nutrition, nutrition edu­ cities, have less access to reasonably Tsafety net represents the first cation, public health, sustainable priced, high-quality food than other line of defense in boosting the agriculture, and community devel­ households. For example, a 1997 food purchasing power and improv­ opment. As such, community food study by USDA's Economic ing the nutritional status of low­ security has no universally accepted Research Service found that super­ income households in the United definition. market prices were about 10 percent States. In fiscal 2000, USDA spent an Researchers at Tufts University lower, nationwide, on average, com­ estimated $32.5 billion on food view community food security as an pared with grocery stores, conve­ assistance programs, over half of its expansion of the concept of house­ nience stores, and grocery/ gas com­ annual budget. Community-based hold food security, which focuses on binations predominant in rural areas initiatives, such as farmers markets the ability of a household to acquire and central cities where a greater and community gardens, can boost enough food for an active, healthy proportion of the poor live. the effectiveness of USDA nutrition life. Community food security Supermarkets, which are more assistance and education programs focuses on the underlying social, prevalent in suburban areas, can by increasing the availability of economic, and institutional factors charge lower prices, partly due to high-quality and affordable food in within a community that affect the their lower operating costs and a community. Such initiatives also quantity, quality, and affordability of larger item selection, including store support rural comunities by food. label and generic items. This finding strengthening the traditional ties Researchers at Rutgers University has particular implications for low­ that exist between farmers and see community food security as a income households because house­ urban consumers. process in which community-based holds with access to supermarkets Following congressional passage programs work in tandem with a can often lower total food costs by of the Community Food Security strong Federal nutrition safety net selecting items within a food cate­ Act of 1996, USDA launched the and emergency food assistance pro­ gory, such as larger package sizes Community Food Security Initiative grams to move people from poverty or store brands, that are more in February 1999. This nationwide to self-sufficiency and food security economical. initiative seeks to forge partnerships (see box). This article examines a A 1997 study by USDA's Food between USDA and local communi­ variety of community food security and Nutrition Service (FNS) found ties to build local food systems, de­ programs, looking at their scope, that, nationwide, 77 percent of food crease need, and improve nutrition. their limitations, and their successes. stamps were redeemed at supermar­ Community food security is a rel­ kets. However, supermarkets atively new concept with roots in a accounted for 59 percent of all food variety of disciplines, including Foodstore Access stamp redemptions in rural areas Affects Food Affordability and 64 percent of redemptions in and Quality the poorest central cities (those with more than 20 percent of the popula­ Various studies suggest that low­ tion living in poverty) (fig. 1). The The author is an agricultural economist with the income households, particularly remaining food stamps were spent Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. those in rural areas and poor central in grocery stores, convenience

FoodReview • Volume 24, Issue l 20 Welfare Reform and Food Assistance

Community Food Security Programs Benefit Farmers and Consumers Community food security pro­ households that participate in the provide small farmers with eco­ grams encompass a wide variety of Food Stamp Program and reduce nomic stability and consumers with community-based efforts to increase dependence on emergency food high-quality produce, often at the quantity, quality, and affordabil­ assistance providers. below-retail prices. ity of food for local residents, espe­ Farmers markets boost incomes of Farm-to-school initiatives help cially for low-income residents. small, local farmers and increase local farmers sell fresh fruits and Some of these programs improve consumer access to fresh produce. vegetables directly to school meal food access for low-income house­ Community gardens help public programs. holds and support rural communi­ housing residents and other low­ Food recovery programs rescue ties by strengthening traditional ties income consumers supplement wholesome food that would other­ between farmers and urban con­ their diets with home-grown pro­ wise be thrown away and provide sumers. Examples of community duce. the food to groups that serve the food security programs include the Food buying cooperatives help needy. following: families save money by pooling Food stamp outreach programs food purchases. Community-sup­ help increase the number of eligible ported agriculture programs help

stores, and grocery sections of gas Figure 1 stations. Convenience stores and Share of Food Stamp Redemptions in Supermarkets grocery/ gas combinations typically Varies by Location offer poor selection and higher Percent prices, compared with supermarkets 100 and grocery stores. - Area average A 1997 FNS study of shopping Highest poverty1 habits of food stamp households - Lowest poverty1 found that many households, espe­ 80 cially African-American households, made just one major shopping trip per month, usually right after receiving food stamps. Food stamp 60 households made interim trips only to replace perishable items. Fewer shopping trips per month can mean 40 reduced access and higher prices for perishable items like dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables as households purchase these items in 20 smaller, more expensive stores closer to home.

Food Cooperatives Can 0 All areas Rural2 Urban3 Mixed4 Stretch Food Dollars Food cooperatives are customer­ 1Zip codes were divided into poverty quintiles. The highest poverty zip codes are those owned entities that are often formed in which more than 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level. The median poverty rate in the lowest poverty zip codes varied by metropolitan status. Median poverty to meet a need not being met by a rates in the lowest poverty quintiles were 6.9 percent (rural), 2.9 percent (urban), and 4.2 traditional retail store or to provide ~ercent (mixed). an alternative source of food in Rural areas = Zip codes with less than 10 percent urban population. areas poorly served by retail mar­ 3Urban areas = Urban population exceeds 90 percent 4Mixed areas = Urban population ranges from 10 percent to 90 percent. kets. There are two major types of Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Authorized Retailers' Characteristics Study, food cooperatives: buying clubs (or February 1997. pre-order cooperatives) and retail

January-April 2001 21 Welfare Reform and Food Assistance

security. Farmers markets are one of the leading sources of direct farm marketing in the United States. USDA reports the number of farm­ ers markets in the United States increased 63 percent in the past 6 years, from 1,755 in 1994 to 2,863 in 2000. A 1996 USDA study estimated national fruit and vegetable sales through farmers markets and other direct marketing outlets at $1.1 billion. A farmers market brings together producers and consumers at the same place and time, usually once or twice a week, typically in an out­ door setting. The markets range in size from a small community-based market to a large market run by a Community gardens are a way for local farmer organization and serving groups to improve households' access to several thousand shoppers. All fresh produce. Volunteer staff members farmers markets sell fresh fruits and with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) grow vegetables in kiddie vegetables, but markets can also sell pools on the roof of the parking garage at cheese, meat and poultry, fresh ELCA's offices in Chicago, IL. The vege­ flowers, baked goods, honey, maple tables are donated to local food pantries. syrup, jellies and relishes, and Credit: Photographs courtesy of the crafts. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Data from USDA's NFSPS suggest that farmers markets account for a relatively small share of total food purchases by low-income house­ cooperative food stores. In buying rates for operating food coopera­ holds. Less than one-quarter of food clubs, members pool their resources tives in low-income areas- due to stamp participants reported shop­ (money, labor, purchasing, and dis­ lack of community support, poor ping at a farmers market, while one­ tribution) to buy food in bulk quan­ access to working capital, and Fed­ third shopped at a produce stand. tities at reduced cost. Retail coopera­ eral regulations that require cooper­ Households that were eligible for tive food stores maintain an atives to offer a full range of staple food stamps but did not participate inventory of food and nonfood foods in order to qualify as an in the program and households that items similar to a regular retail authorized food stamp retailer­ were nearly eligible for food stamps store. Members typically have some may limit access to food coopera­ were somewhat more likely to use control over the types and quality of tives among food stamp recipients these outlets as food sources. food available and often receive and other low-income households. In 1998, the latest year for which price discounts in return for a set data are available, farmers markets number of work hours. accounted for just 0.02 percent of According to National Coopera­ Farmers Markets food stamp redemptions nation­ tive Business Association data, the Dominate Direct wide, followed by produce stands at United States has approximately 500 Agricultural Marketing 0.01 percent. Produce routes, or retail cooperative food stores where mobile produce providers who sell people can walk in and buy food. Direct farm marketing, including products from the back of trucks, However, of 2,400 food stamp recip­ farmers markets, community-sup­ accounted for 0.31 percent of the ients interviewed for the 1996 ported agriculture programs, pick­ redemption total. National Food Stamp Program Sur­ your-own farms, roadside stands, Between 1994 and 1998, food vey (NFSPS), fewer than 3 percent and direct sales of farm products to stamp participation declined and reported shopping at a food cooper­ schools and other institutions, is a total redemptions decreased from ative. The relatively low success key component of community food $21.8 billion to $16.8 billion. Food

FoodReview • Volume 24, Issue l 22 Welfare Reform and Food Assistance stamp redemptions dropped more areas. Nationwide, seven States­ CSA prices with retail foodstore sharply from $6.4 million to $3.8 California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, prices in the same area. The study million at farmers markets, from Massachusetts, Missouri, and New found that comparable produce pur­ $134 million to $58 million at pro­ York-account for 41 percent of the chased in a conventional supermar­ duce stands, and from $11.9 million farmers markets, compared with 30 ket cost 60-150 percent more than if to $2.6 million on produce routes, as percent of the total population. purchased through a CSA. many States adopted electronic ben­ Despite potential cost savings and efits transfer (EBT) systems for food other benefits, participation in CSA stamps. During the same period, Community-Supported programs can be difficult for low­ redemptions at supermarkets, gro­ Agriculture Increases in income consumers. Many low­ cery stores, and other food stores Popularity income households may not have decreased at about the same rate as the resources to pay a lump-sum fee the total decline. Most farmers mar­ Community-supported agricul­ at the beginning of a growing sea­ kets, produce stands, and produce ture (CSA) is a relatively new direct son. Food stamp recipients are not routes operate in environments in marketing tool that is seen as an allowed to use food stamps to pur­ which the electric power and land­ alternative food source for low­ chase CSA shares based on the line telephone access required for income consumers with limited notion that recipients are speculat­ EBT redemptions is not readily access to conventional food sources. ing on the outcome of a crop rather available. Federal welfare reform In a CSA program, a group of con­ than actually purchasing food. Some legislation enacted in 1996 requires sumers (shareholders) purchase CSA programs are reaching out to that all States implement Food shares at the beginning of the grow­ low-income consumers with pro­ Stamp Program EBT systems before ing season to buy a portion of the grams to subsidize shares for house­ October 2002, unless a State receives farm's crop that year. This arrange­ holds that are unable to afford the a special waiver from USDA. USDA ment gives growers upfront cash to full price (see "Organic Marketing is currently working with State and finance their operation and higher Features Fresh Foods and Direct local officials to improve EBT access prices for produce, since the middle­ Exchange" elsewhere in this issue). in direct marketing outlets. man has been eliminated. Share­ USDA reported that about 550 Direct farm marketers in low­ holders receive a weekly box or bag CSA programs operated in the income areas may face many of the of fresh produce, typically organi­ United States in 2000. CSA pro­ same constraints faced by tradi­ cally grown, which is usually har­ grams, however, were unevenly dis­ tional retailers in such neighbor­ vested no more than 1 day prior to tributed nationwide. Ten States­ hoods. Low-volume sales, concerns delivery. California, Iowa, Massachusetts, about crime, limited space for park­ The Center for Agroecology and Minnesota, New York, Oregon, ing, competition from produce Sustainable Food Systems at the Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washing­ routes, and competition from local University of California, Santa Cruz, ton, and Wisconsin-accounted for retail stores that may offer produce states CSA programs take many nearly two-thirds of all CSA pro­ items as "loss leaders" can limit forms. Shares are usually intended grams in the United States. More farmer participation in farmers mar­ to feed two to four people at an than one-third of States had fewer kets in low-income areas or increase average price of $10-$30 per share than six programs (fig. 2). prices beyond the reach of many for 10-25 weeks, depending on the low-income consumers. Also, in geographic area, or between $100 areas with large numbers of food and $750 per season. Some CSAs Farm-to-School Initiatives stamp recipients, the tendency of allow members to purchase shares Can Boost Local Farm recipients to concentrate purchases on a monthly or quarterly basis. Income early in the month when benefits Delivery options vary from pro­ are received may limit purchases at grams in which members must pick Farm-to-school initiatives encour­ farmers markets. In neighborhoods up their food at the farm itself to age small farmers to sell fresh pro­ with large immigrant populations, those in which food is delivered to duce to schools and encourage farmers may have difficulty supply­ centralized pickup sites around a schools to buy fresh produce from ing foods with specific ethnic community. The typical CSA offers a small farmers, usually from the local appeal, such as tropical fruits, that mix of between 8 and 12 types of community. According to USDA' s are typically not produced in the vegetables, fruits, and herbs per Small Farms/School Meals Initiative United States. week per shareholder. Guide, farm-to-school programs Finally, farmers markets are not A 1995 study of three CSA pro­ benefit both students and farmers equally available in all geographic grams in Massachusetts compared by providing fresh, nutritious pro-

January-April 2001 23 Welfare Reform and Food Assistance

Figure 2 California, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin Rank Highest in Number of Community­ Supported Agriculture Programs

~o HI

,_.. oo·

Do D1-s D 11-20 D21-30 .30+

duce for school meals and new mar­ obstacles are quite formidable. have trouble integrating locally keting outlets for small and limited­ Farmers must prove that they can grown foods into such preset menu resource farmers. Schools may be supply the quantity, variety, quality, arrangements. able to lower food costs by purchas­ and selection of produce that The formation of farmer coopera­ ing fresh fruits and vegetables from schools need and deliver it in a tives may enable small farm opera­ local producers while students are timely and dependable manner. tors to more effectively compete provided with the opportunity to School districts often contract to with more traditional wholesale learn where their food comes from, purchase foods for every school in food vendors in the school foodser­ interact with farmers who grow their district at wholesale prices vice market. For example, farmers their food, and learn about the from large foodservice contractors. participating in a USDA pilot farm­ importance of fruits and vegetables District procurement rules may limit to-school project in north Florida in a healthful diet. the ability of individual foodservice during the 1997-98 and 1998-99 Such programs, however, are not managers to contract with individ­ school years formed a successful without limitations. Both farmers ual suppliers, such as local farmers. marketing cooperative to sell fresh and schools face a number of obsta­ Also, some schools or school dis­ leafy greens to Florida school cles in successfully integrating tricts contract with a foodservice districts. locally grown produce into school vendor or fast food company to sup­ meal programs. At times, these ply prepared meal options and may

FoodReview • Volume 24, Issue l 24 Welfare Reform and Food Assistance

Community Gardening citrus fruits, baked goods, and soft obtaining donated supplies, apply­ Improves Access to drinks than nongardeners. ing for startup grants, and sharing Community gardeners, however, costs for common-area items like Fresh Produce face a number of constraints that fencing and cleanup. Many communities have sought can affect participation by low­ The value of crops produced in a to improve households' access to income households. Low-income community garden depends on cli­ fresh fruits and vegetables through households may hesitate to spend mate, experience of the gardeners community gardening. The Ameri­ money from their limited budgets themselves, and quality and timing can Community Gardening Associa­ on gardening inpu ts when the out­ of inputs, such as compost, water, tion (ACGA), a national nonprofit come of a crop is uncertain. Basic and sunlight. According to a for­ organization that supports the needs for a successful community mula developed by USDA and the development of community gar­ garden include good soil, a reliable National Gardening Association, a dens, defines a community garden in-ground water system that meets garden plot of 10 x 20 feet can yield as any place where two or more all appropriate city codes, and fenc­ between $70 and $540 worth of veg­ people garden together. Community ing. Community gardens over 5,000 etables per season, depending on gardens are commonly established square feet also require a delivery crop density, crop quality, and on vacant lots in central cities where area, compost area, and a conve­ length of season. The Georgia land for home gardens is limited. nient water source. Department of Agriculture esti­ They can include school-based gar­ Establishing and maintaining a mated the average value of the yield dens, therapeutic gardens for community garden costs an esti­ for such a 10 x 20 plot at $600 per seniors and disabled people, and mated $1 per square foot per year season. youth training gardens. over 5 years for soil, seeds, soil test­ Lack of secure land tenure can It is difficult to determine the ing, basic turkey wire fence, and ini­ also create uncertainty in the ability precise number of community gar­ tial cleanup, assuming volunteer of community gardens to serve as a dens in the United States due to labor and a free water source. An reliable food source for low-income their local nature and lack of formal average 10 x 20 foot plot could cost households. Community gardens organizational structure. ACGA $200 per year. Many community are often seen as a temporary use estimates a total of 150,000 commu­ gardens attempt to minimize input for vacant and city-owned land that nity gardens in the United States, costs for individual gardens by is later developed by city govern­ with New York City leading the list ments eager to expand their tax (table 1). Table l base. The ACGA's 1998 National Few studies have quantified the New York City Leads the Nation Community Gardening Survey impact of community gardens on in Community Gardening found that only 5.3 percent of gar­ food and nutrient intakes by low­ dens in 38 cities were in permanent - II Community ownership status. income households. A 1991 study gardens undertaken by Pennsylvania State in selected A 1999 study of rural community University examined fruit and veg­ City I cities, 1996 gardeners in 13 States by the Tufts etable consumption among 144 com­ University Center on Hunger and munity gardeners and a control New Yo rk, NY 1,906 Poverty found that travel to com­ group of 67 nongardeners through­ New ark, NJ 1,318 munity gardens in rural areas may Philadelphia, PA out the city of Philadelphia. The I 1,135 be difficult, costly, and time con­ Minneapolis, MN 536 study found that community gar­ suming, and that volunteer labor Boston, MA 148 deners consumed several vegetables was subject to high turnover. Some San Francisco, CA 113 rural areas provide incentives for more often than their nongardening Pittsburgh, PA 108 residents to garden on their per­ counterparts, including cruciferous Washing ton, DC 58 vegetables like cabbage, cauliflower, Seattle, WA 44 sonal property, including technical and brussels sprouts and dark-green New Orleans, LA 43 assistance, free seeds, tilling, and I leafy vegetables like kale, broccoli, Madison. WI 37 training plots to improve food­ pak choi, and other Chinese vegeta­ Portland, O R 23 growing skills. A Vermont project bles. Cruciferous and dark-green Tusc on, AZ. 5 paired local experienced gardeners leafy vegetables are among the least Durha m, NC 4 with others interested in gardening. Santa Barb ara, CA consumed vegetables in the United 3 A Wisconsin group established com­ States. The study also found that Source: National Community Gardening munity gardens in trailer parks and Survey, American Community Gardening low-income apartment complexes. community gardeners were less Association, 1998. likely to consume dairy products,

January-April 2001 25

• Welfare Reform and Food Assistance

USDA Toolkits Provide References of Unity," Community Food Security News, Summer 1999, Community Communities With American Community Gardening Food Security Coalition, Venice, CA. Technical Assistance Association. National Community Kaufman, Phillip R., James M. Gardening Survey. 1998. Currently, community food secu­ MacDonald, Steven M. Lutz, and Anderson, Molly D., and John T. rity programs are unevenly repre­ David M. Smallwood. Do the Poor Cook. "Community Food Security: sented across the Nation. Areas Pay More for Food? Item Selection and Practice in Need of Theory?" Agri­ underserved include the Western Price Differences Affect Low-Income culture and Human Values, Vol. 16, States of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Household Food Costs, Agricultural 1999, pp. 141-150. and Utah, and the lower Mississippi Economic Report No. 759. U.S. De­ Blair, Dorothy, Carol C. Giesecke, Delta States of Louisiana, Arkansas, partment of Agriculture, Economic and Sandra Sherman. "A Dietary, Research Service, November 1997. and Mississippi. The lower Missis­ Social, and Economic Evaluation of Mantovani, Richard E., Lynn Daft, sippi region is among the poorest in the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Theodore F. Macaluso, James Welsh, the Nation. By contrast, community Project," Journal of Nutrition Educa­ and Katherine Hoffman. Authorized food security programs enjoy strong tion, Vol. 23, 1991, pp. 161-167. Food Retailer Characteristics Study, support in a handful of States, Bradbard, Steven, Eileen F. Technical Report IV: Authorized Food including California, Iowa, Massa­ Michaels, Kathryn Fleming, and Retailers' Characteristics and Access chusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ore­ Marci Campbell. Understanding the Study. U.S. Department of Agricul­ gon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Food Choices of Low Income Families. ture, Food and Consumer Service, Vermont. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, The recently released Food and Food and Consumer Service, Office February 1997. Nutrition Service publication A of Analysis and Evaluation, May 30, National Nutrition Safety Net: Tools for Ohls, James C., Michael Ponza, 1997. Lorenzo Moreno, Amy Zambrowski, Community Food Security contains a Burns, Arthur, and Denny N. and Rhoda Cohen. Food Stamp Par­ set of checklists to help communities Johnson. Farmers' Market Survey ticipants' Access to Food Retailers, identify barriers people may face in Report. U.S. Department of Agricul­ Final Report. U.S. Department of fully participating in USDA nutri­ ture, Agricultural Marketing Ser­ Agriculture, Food and Nutrition tion assistance programs. The publi­ vice, Transportation and Marketing Service, Office of Analysis and Eval­ cation also instructs communities on Division, Wholesale and Alternative how to improve nutrition assistance uation, July 1999. Markets Program, July 1996. Sullivan, Ashley. Community Gar­ infrastructures. Cooley, Jack, and Daniel Lass. dening in Rural Regions: Enhancing A forthcoming USDA community "Consumer Benefits from Commu­ Food Security and Nutrition. Boston, food security toolkit will provide a nity Supported Agriculture Mem­ MA: Tufts University, School of standardized set of tools for measur­ bership," Review of Agricultural Eco­ Nutrition and Poverty, Center on ing various indicators of community nomics, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring/ Hunger and Poverty, December food security, including food Summer 1998, pp. 227-237. resource accessibility, food availabil­ 1999. Gale, Fred. "Direct Farm Market­ U.S. Department of Agriculture, ity, food affordability, and local agri­ ing as a Rural Development Tool," Economic Research Service. USDA cultural resources. The toolkit will Rural Development Perspectives, Vol. Community Food Security Assessment provide communities with an 12, No. 2, February 1997, U.S. Toolkit, forthcoming. important first step in identifying Department of Agriculture, Eco­ U.S. Department of Agriculture, the resources needed to most effec­ nomic Research Service. Food and Nutrition Service. The tively meet the food needs of their Hamm, Michael. "Community National Nutrition Safety Net: Tools for citizens. Food Security and Anti-Hunger Community Food Security, Food and Advocacy: Similar Goals in Search Nutrition-314, January 2000. •

FoodReview • Volume 24, Issue l 26