NERAHN: Northeast Regional Anti-Hunger Network

UPS Project Background

Description of the UPS Project

Project Bread – The Walk for Hunger, in collaboration with End Hunger Connecticut!, the Hunger Action Network of New York State, the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger, and the Food Action and Research Center received a two year grant from the UPS Foundation. Under the designation of the Northeast Collaboration to Reduce Hunger and Improve Nutrition, this funding was given to support expansion of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. End Hunger Connecticut! (EHC!), Project Bread, the Hunger Action Network of New York State (Hunger Action Network), and the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger (VTCECH) served as lead agencies in their states; all four organizations are part of the Northeast Regional Anti-Hunger Network (NERAHN). The Nutrition Consortium in New York and the Connecticut Association of Human Services were subcontractors on this project.

The UPS Project took a comprehensive, collaborative, four-state approach to reducing hunger among children by increasing participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). The SFSP provides healthy meals to children 18 years old and younger in parks, schools, and recreation programs in low-income communities during the summer when they lose access to school breakfast and lunch.

The goal of the UPS Project was to demonstrate effective ways to expand the reach of the SFSP, reduce the risk for hunger and malnutrition among low-income children, and ensure that children return to school in the fall healthy and ready to learn.

Given the link between hunger and obesity, the Project goal was not only to increase participation in the SFSP, but also to improve the nutritional quality of the meals that children receive in the summer. Increasing food quality in turn is a demonstrated strategy for increasing participation in summer meal programs.

Collaboration Benefits: We experienced many benefits to working as a regional collaboration on this project throughout the duration of the grant, including:

Sharing ideas and successes as well as challenges with others.
Receiving feedback and suggestions from others.
Having the backing of a larger coalition when beginning work in a community.
Participating in a multi-year project with a strong evaluation component, including statistical data and analysis.
Supporting and motivating colleagues across state lines.
Strengthening our contacts and connections to other northeast regional anti-hunger organizations.
Sharing best practices, lessons learned, and results at regional and national conferences.
Translating lessons learned into public policy recommendations at the national, regional, state, and local level.
Receiving a stable source of funding for the duration of the grant.

About the Summer Food Service Program
Despite the availability of summer meals, only 17.5 children participate in Summer Nutrition programs nationwide for every 100 who eat a free or reduced price school lunch during the academic year (Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation, FRAC, June 2008.) In 2007, that number was 21.3 per 100 in Massachusetts, 26 per 100 in Connecticut, 29.8 per 100 in New York, and 26.7 per 100 in Vermont. The result is that thousands of children are at risk of hunger and malnutrition and are returning to school in the fall at a disadvantage.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides funds to low-income communities through the Summer Food Service Program to address this problem. Summer meals are located at schools, parks, public pools, neighborhood centers, and other local sites. Meals are free for all children age 18 and under. Most programs serve lunch, some serve breakfast, and a few offer a snack or supper. No registration or identification is required to attend a feeding site and receive a free meal.

Benefits of the SFSP:
Many students receive free or reduced-price meals at school. However, when school is out during the summer months, families with tight budgets have difficulty absorbing the additional meal costs. As a result, many students experience hunger and malnutrition during the summer months and return to school at a disadvantage. Students who have access to nutritious meals throughout the summer return to school in the fall ready to learn, and the Summer Food Service Program helps make this possible.

Challenges of the SFSP:

Lack of parental awareness about the SFSP as an option for their children
Limited number of sites in some communities
Inadequate number of meals offered during the day. Many sites offer only lunch but could offer a second meal as well.
Difficulty getting to sites because of their location and/or limited transportation options to get to the sites
High cost of hiring staff to provide programming at sites or hand out meals, and difficulty of recruiting volunteers to assume these tasks
Limitations of state and city budgets to provide summer programming for children
Inadequate outreach to families and communities about the program
Language barriers
Overall lack of visibility and information about the SFSP

Objective and Goals of the UPS Project

Objectives

Identify two target communities and two control communities in each of the four participating states in each of the two years of the funded project.
- The total number of target communities and control communities identified during the grant period was thirty-two.
Conduct assessments of the SFSP sites in each of the target and control communities.
- Eight target communities and eight control communities were assessed in year one and eight of each in year two.
Use data collected from the assessments to identify work plans for each target community with the goal of increasing SFSP participation in these communities.
Identify essential members and build the community coalition necessary to achieve the desired goals. Members may include mayors, superintendents, schools, parks and recreation departments, YMCAs, summer programs for children, police, and parents.
Design and implement parent outreach strategies to increase parent awareness of the SFSP and identify barriers to their children’s participation. Knowledge gained will be incorporated into the work plans and carried out by the Program Coordinators and coalition members.

Expected Outcomes:

Levels of SFSP participation in the sixteen target communities will be doubled in the summer of 2008.
The overall participation levels of the four participating states will increase significantly compared to 2006 baseline measure.
The quality of meals served in the SFSP will be improved.

Short-term Organizational Goals:

To complete an in-depth assessment of the SFSP in the target and control communities in September 2006.
To use this data and the knowledge of the collaboration members in all four states and FRAC to develop work plans designed to increase both participation levels and the quality of food served.
To contact all major collaborators in the target communities by January 2007 and convene meetings to implement the work plans through these groups.

Mid-term Organizational Goals for the Summer of 2007:

To double the number of summer meals served in the target communities with the goal of increasing them to the overall state level.
To increase the number of SFSP sites.
To improve the quality of the food served.

Long-term Organizational Goals for the Summer of 2008:

To double the number of summer meals served in the second group of target communities.
To improve the quality of the food served.
To increase the number of sites offering the SFSP.
To increase the number of meals served each day by adding a second meal.
To increase the number of weeks that SFSP programs operate.
To significantly increase the overall, statewide participation in the SFSP as compared to the baseline 2006 measure.
To help community-based organizations and coalitions strengthen and sustain their SFSPs.

Evaluation & Results

The evaluation will examine whether the target communities, which have been operating below the state levels for SFSP participation, can increase their participation to the overall state level.

Baseline data was collected in the target communities during the summer of 2006 and compared to follow-up data collected after program implementation in the summer of 2007. This process was repeated for the second year of the grant, with baseline data collected in the two new target communities in each state in the summer of 2007 and compared to data collected following program implementation in the summer of 2008. This information was used to develop each state’s work plan for the following year and helped determine differences in increases in SFSP participation across the target communities for the summers of 2007 and 2008. Assessments of these differences will offer important lessons about the strengths and weaknesses in the approaches taken to increase participation.

Conclusion

The Northeast Collaboration to Reduce Hunger and Improve Nutrition was presented with an exciting opportunity to increase SFSP participation across four states, share best practices and lessons learned, and document the strategies for widespread replication. The Project outcomes were improved because of the collaborative approach, including four state-wide organizations, NERAHN, and a national partner, FRAC. Working on the local, state, regional, and national levels simultaneously was unique and powerful.

The hard work and collaboration resulted in increased participation in the SFSP, improved quality of food served, an increase in the number of summer meals sites, and improved operations. As a result, the UPS Project significantly increased federal reimbursement revenues to low-income communities and hopefully allowed them to sustain these efforts.

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

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