NERAHN: Northeast Regional Anti-Hunger Network

Identifying and Assessing a Target Community to Build a Work Plan

Identifying a Target Community for SFSP Introduction or Expansion

For the purposes of the UPS Project, target communities were identified according to the following criteria: neighborhood poverty rates, the existence of schools in which greater than 50 percent of students enrolled were eligible for free or reduced price school lunches (aka 50% schools), low levels of SFSP participation, and the presence of local partner agencies who were willing to participate in the SFSP. In some cases, the chosen target community’s data did not reflect high poverty rates or low SFSP participation across the entire community. However, the neighborhoods that were the focus of the intervention all had at least one 50 percent school or one low-income census tract and SFSP participation far below the state average.

See target and control community statistics

Tools for Assessing Neighborhood Poverty Rates and SFSP Area Eligibility

Census tract maps

Several years ago, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) created an online mapping tool that utilizes 2000 Census data to depict household poverty as it exists in each census tract. These geographic information system (GIS) maps identify the percentage of children under the age of 19 that live in a household whose income is at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. This tool allows the user to search any community in the U.S. to identify color-coded census tracts that would be eligible for an open SFSP site. Though demographic shifts since 2000 are a certainty, this tool is an allowable source for establishing SFSP area eligibility.

50% schools

In many states, the Department of Education releases a list of schools in which 50 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced price meals. This list is available in late winter or early spring and is based on statistics collected in the fall through School Meal Applications. All of the schools on this list can establish area eligibility for an open site.
Organizations that may not be able to obtain a list of 50% schools from their state’s child nutrition agency (usually the Dept of Education or Dept of Human Services) can contact the school food service department in the local district to obtain a list of qualifying schools.

Statistical Tools for Assessing Low SFSP Participation

School Meal Participation versus SFSP participation

Participation data for the National School Lunch Program and the Summer Food Service Program is available by contacting the state agency that administers these programs. Analyzing this data can indicate whether there is potential for SFSP growth within a community.

SFSP advocates can assess whether there are more children who could benefit from free summer meals by comparing the number of children that receive free or reduced price school meals during the academic year to the number of children that participate in the SFSP. In most communities, SFSP participation is significantly lower than school meal participation. Determining the size of this participation gap may provide insight into the extent of SFSP site development and outreach that is necessary.
Similarly, comparing the community’s SFSP participation as a percentage of school meal participation to that of the state is another way to gauge how well the community is meeting the needs of its low-income children.

Participation Trends

Identifying a community’s participation trends over time can provide some preliminary information about the stability and scope of a program. It can also indicate significant changes in a community that might need to be addressed.

Sudden decreases in the number of sites, for example, could be the result of pools or schools closing during the summer.
The presence of many small sites with low participation in close proximity to each other might suggest that a more central location where kids congregate, such as a park or pool, would serve as a better site.
High participation in July and low participation in August might highlight the need for a mid summer SFSP outreach event or additional SFSP promotion once summer school ends in July.

Examples of Target Community Needs Assessments

Community that had a 50% school but no SFSP prior to the UPS Project
Plymouth, Massachusetts is a suburban town located 40 miles south of Boston with a population of just over 51,000 people. Seven percent of families with children under 18 years old in Plymouth live below the poverty level. As of March 2006, according to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Plymouth qualified to operate the SFSP in the area of the Hedge Elementary School because 50 percent of the students who attend the Hedge School are eligible for free or reduced price meals. However, there were no SFSP sites in the town. Approximately 1,231 students were eating free or reduced price meals as of March 2005 and could be eating a free meal during the summer.

Community that showed decline in participation over several years prior to UPS Project
Middletown is a small city located in central Connecticut with a population of 43,000 people. The city is home to Wesleyan University and contains a variety of urban and rural settings that surround its historic downtown. Twenty percent of Middletown families with children under 18 live below the poverty level. Middletown’s summer food participation decreased significantly between 2001 and 2005 when only 4 percent of the 1,498 students who received free or reduced price school meals during the 2004-2005 school year ate a free meal in the summer. This left over 1,400 additional children who could benefit from the SFSP program.

Community with high levels of poverty but low SFSP participation compared to state average
District 30 is an urban community in the New York City Borough of Queens. Situated in the Northwest area of Queens, District 30 encompasses the neighborhoods of Astoria, Long Island City, and Jackson Heights. In many schools, between 80 and 90 percent of children are eligible for free or reduced price meals. In 2005, an average of approximately 4,763 children per day participated in the summer meals program. This represents only 19 percent of the District 30 students who were eating free or reduced-price meals during the 2004-2005 school year and is significantly lower than the 28.9 percent of students in New York State that participated in summer nutrition in 2005.

Determining the Presence of Local Partners

Collaborating with community partners is critical to the success of any Summer Food Service Program. Meeting with existing sponsors and site supervisors during the SFSP planning process will provide information about successes and challenges experienced in prior years . These individuals might have ideas on other contacts or organizations in the community that could be recruited to participate in SFSP planning.

See Building a Community Coalition for ideas on identifying and organizing partners in a target community.

UPS Project coordinators for all four states identified and reached out to a core group of community partners to either establish a new relationship or build on an existing one. These included legislators, city and school officials, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, food pantries, local farmers, universities, churches, and other social and human service organizations.

Assessing an Existing Summer Food Service Program

In order to develop a work plan for increasing SFSP participation within a target community, it is helpful to first assess the existing summer meal program. Each of the states that participated in the UPS Project conducted a comprehensive assessment of the existing sites in their target communities. Project coordinators met with all of the local SFSP sponsors as well as the site supervisors whenever possible. Coordinators used a SFSP site visit form to gather baseline information about program activities, food quality, and participation trends. This information was also used to plan strategies for increasing participation in the target communities for the upcoming summer.

Project Coordinators in all four states also worked with the sites to research and encourage participation by children of all ethnicities residing in the target communities. While SFSP sites do not collect information about participating children’s race and ethnicity, project coordinators developed a greater understanding of the populations served after completing their assessments and then targeted their efforts for the upcoming summer accordingly.

Since Amsterdam, NY has a large Hispanic population, UPS Project partners reached out to organizations that serve the Hispanic population to include them in SFSP planning. As a result, they were able to develop bilingual outreach materials and ideas for culturally appropriate summer meals.

Creating a SFSP Work Plan

Once SFSP advocates conduct an assessment to identify barriers to SFSP participation in a community, it is time to develop a work plan outlining the strategies needed to address these obstacles. For the states that participated in the UPS Project, work plans focused on the three main areas and respective tasks listed below:

Target community sponsors and sites

Develop maps identifying current sites and potential locations for new sites such as schools, parks, etc. Use this information to determine which areas, if any, to target for new sites.
Hold a community meeting co-hosted by a prominent leader (mayor, state senator, etc) to discuss hunger in the community and SFSP expansion. Invite potential partners such as Food Service Directors and Parks and Recreation Departments among others.
Promote any grant money available for site expansion.
Visit all sites and conduct surveys of sponsors and site supervisors.

Conduct outreach
- Develop any promotional materials needed.

Release PSAs and conduct media interviews.
Secure commitments from local city departments, schools, and community organizations to distribute materials.
Plan a kickoff event at a site co-hosted by the mayor or other local official, and invite local press.

Address meal quality and nutrition

Work with sponsors to offer suggestions for improving the meals served.
Work with sponsors to add meals to current sites.
Survey kids and site supervisors about the summer meals and observe food quality during site visits.

Work plans should be revised as needed based on new information about the community, advice provided by local partners, and ongoing communication with sponsors and sites.

See sample work plan

Planning Around Obstacles

Despite the best efforts to assess each target community and develop a specific work plan that addressed the community’s individual needs and characteristics, there were some obstacles that could not be overcome during the UPS Project intervention.

Programming
Since organized and supervised activities attract children and provide the perfect setting to serve meals, the lack of affordable summer programming for low-income children in each of the four states was a major barrier to increasing SFSP participation. This barrier was especially problematic in several of the target communities, including Malden and Plymouth, MA and Queens, NY. In order to address this problem, UPS Project partners worked with local officials and organizations in the target communities to make sure that existing summer programs participated in the SFSP, and they worked to connect volunteers to SFSP meal sites in communities that lack activities.

Transportation
Access to sites can also be obstacle to program participation. In Plymouth, MA, transportation is a barrier because the town is large geographically, and the few programs that exist for low-income children are not located in the neighborhoods where they live. Funding for transportation to one of the two new sites in Plymouth, MA was cut. This resulted in lower attendance at the sites than anticipated. The program hopes to have more funding for transportation in future summers, and efforts were made to address transportation issues by working with town officials and elected state officials. However, transportation continues to be an obstacle.

Learn More about the UPS Project
UPS Project Background
Organizational Profiles and Contact Information
Results

Read More SFSP Best Practice Tools
Building a community coalition to support a work plan
Recruiting sponsors and sites
Conducting outreach
Addressing meal quality