1

Evaluation of a Food Pantry Using a

Client Survey: Comparing Beneficiaries

and Satisfaction between Sites

Rotarian Economist Paper No. 2014-5 http://rotarianeconomist.com/

Analysis and Commentary for Service Above Self

Divya Wodon and

Naina Wodon

October 2014

2

Evaluation of a Food Pantry Using a Client Survey:

Comparing Beneficiaries and Satisfaction between Sites

Divya Wodon and Naina Wodon1

October 2014

(Originally written in June 2014)

Abstract

Hunger remains widespread in the United States, including the capital city of Washington,

DC. Food pantries are essential tools to provide emergency food for those in need. This paper

provides a light evaluation of a food pantry program run in Washington DC by Central Union

Mission. Data were collected among program beneficiaries in two food distribution sites, one

serving a Latino population and the other an African American population. The same type of food

is distributed in both sites. One question of interest is whether the profile of beneficiaries and their

satisfaction levels with the program are similar in the two sites. The data suggests some statistically

significant differences between the two sites in both the profile of beneficiaries and their

satisfaction for specific aspects of the program (which may be related to cultural differences in

food consumption). These differences in satisfaction for some characteristics of the program did

not however translate into statistically significant differences in overall satisfaction. For both sites,

satisfaction rates turned out to be fairly high, suggesting good performance.

1 We are grateful to Colin Buck and Quentin Wodon for advising us in this project, as well as to the staff of Central

Union Mission for their help in data collection, and especially to Mr. David Treadwell for supporting this work.

3

1. Introduction

One of the most pressing problems faced by low income households in the United States

is hunger. The demand for the services offered by food banks and pantries has increased in recent

years. As Nord et al. (2010) suggest, with the great recession the number of food pantry users has

grown by 20 percent. The Food Research and Action Center (2013) reports that in 2012, 18.2

percent of the U.S. population declared not having enough money to buy the food they needed at

some point during the year.

The fact that many low-income individuals and families are in need of food assistance is

not surprising. Even before the great recession, food assistance was needed especially among

households with few sources of income (e.g., Garasky et al., 2004; Bhattarai et al., 2005). Even

individuals with jobs have been shown to rely on emergency food programs (Berner et al., 2008).

More people use food stamps than pantries as noted by Mosley and Tiehen (2004) in Kansas City

(a third of those using food stamps also participated in pantry programs). But while food pantries

play a smaller role than government transfers in alleviating hunger, they do matter (Guo, 2009),

especially as a third of Americans eligible for food stamps do not receive them (Food Research

and Access Center in Jensen et al., 2011).

Food PLUS is a program operated by Central Union Mission that provides food to low

income individuals or families. The Mission is a nonprofit serving the poor as well as the homeless

in the DC metropolitan area. Participants in Food PLUS are assigned a specific day to receive free

bags of food twice a month. Last year, the Mission provided more than 179,000 meals to low

income families. Food distributions take place typically between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm Mondays

to Thursdays.

The Food PLUS program is open to all in need but it requires beneficiaries to enroll and

document their residency and income. In order to benefit from the program, participants must

attend the distribution days assigned to them at specific Mission locations. Thanks to assigned

dates for food distribution, the waiting time to receive the food is usually very short.

The objective of this paper is to provide an assessment (light evaluation) of the program

and its beneficiaries using data collected by the authors in two locations targeting different

populations. The key question of interest is whether the profile of the beneficiaries and their

satisfaction levels with the program are similar or not in the two locations or sites. This is tested

using chi- squared statistics. The following sections in the paper discuss (1) the methodology used

for the survey; (2) how beneficiaries heard about the program; (3) their demographic and socio-

economic characteristics; and (4) how satisfied they are with the program and its comparative

position versus other similar programs. A brief conclusion with a discussion of the implications of

the results follows.

2. Data and Methodology

The data are from a client survey implemented by the authors in two distribution sites in

2013 (on June 2 and August 29). The first site serves exclusively a Latino population, while the

second site serves almost exclusively African Americans. The sample size for the first site is 39,

and it is 42 for the second site. While these are small sample sizes, they are still sufficient to test

for statistically significant differences between the two sites in the key variables. The survey

questionnaire is provided in appendix. It aimed to provide a basic profile of program beneficiaries

and assess their satisfaction with the program in terms of variables such as the quality and quantity

of the food received as well as the atmosphere and waiting time. Some questions were open-ended

in order to provide richer information, but this summary paper focuses for the most part on

4

responses to closed form questions, with qualitative data discussed more briefly. Apart from

providing a rapid assessment of the program and the beneficiaries’ satisfaction with it, a key

question of interest is whether the profile of beneficiaries and their satisfaction differ between the

two distribution sites. This could happen given the fact that the two sites target different

populations. This is analyzed statistically using chi-squared (χ2) tests that compare categorical

responses between independent groups (the two sites). A few insights from qualitative data are

also provided.

Statistical tables are provided with mean values only for the variables of interest. Standard

errors are not reported in order to keep the tables and thereby the paper short. But since almost all

variables in the survey are categorical (taking values of zero or one), standard errors can be

computed in a straightforward way from the mean values and the survey sample size using the

method indicated in appendix, which can also be used for constructing confidence intervals and

testing hypotheses2.

3. Finding Out about the Program

Table 1 suggests that one in nine (12 percent) beneficiary was new to the program at the

time of the survey (this was their first visit). Most beneficiaries are repeat clients, which is not

surprising since beneficiaries must enroll in the program and are assigned a specific day to receive

food (most beneficiaries are also likely to remain poor for some time). Half (52 percent) of the

beneficiaries enrolled in the program in 2013 while 11 percent enrolled in 2012 and a third (36

percent) in 2011. Thus while many beneficiaries have come several times, many started to come

to the program relatively recently. This is especially true in site 2 which benefits mostly African

Americans and where two thirds of beneficiaries (71 percent) enrolled in 2013. By contrast only a

third (33 percent) of beneficiaries in site 1, which serves mostly the Latino population, enrolled in

2013 versus half (54 percent) enrolling before 2011. These differences between the years of first

visit are statistically significant as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Past Experience with the Program, Year of First Visit, and Distance (%) Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Beneficiaries

New Beneficiaries (%) 12.35 15.38 9.52 0.423

Repeat Beneficiaries (%) 87.65 84.62 90.48

Year of First Visit

2013 (%) 52.50 33.33 70.73 0.002

2012 (%) 11.25 12.82 9.76

2011 or before (%) 36.25 53.85 19.51

Source: Authors.

Beneficiaries who had come previously were asked how often they come to the program.

On average, each client comes once per month and it takes them an average of 25 minutes to come

to collect the food in both sites (these data are not shown in the table, but there are no statistically

differences between sites). Table 2 provides data on where participants live. As expected given the

different locations for the two sites, there are statistically significant differences in the areas where

beneficiaries live.

2 We are grateful to Quentin Wodon for noting this.

5

Table 2: Location of Beneficiaries (%) Zip code Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

20001 9.59 13.51 5.56 0.000

20002 10.96 0.00 22.22

20005 8.22 13.51 2.78

20009 12.33 24.32 0.00

20010 13.70 16.22 11.11

20011 12.33 21.62 2.78

20018 6.85 2.70 11.11

Others 26.02 8.12 44.44

Source: Authors.

How did beneficiaries find out about the program? Table 3 suggests that 81 percent of them

found the program through a friend or their family: 92 percent for site 1 and 71 percent for site 2.

Only one in ten beneficiaries (11 percent) found the program through referrals from other social

agencies, but that proportion was substantially higher for site 2 than site 1 (marginally statistically

significant difference).

Table 3: Point of First Contact (%)

Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Friend or family 81.48 92.31 71.43 0.053

Referral agency 11.11 5.13 16.67

Other 7.41 2.56 11.90

Source: Authors.

3. Profile of Beneficiaries

More than three fourths (78 percent) of beneficiaries are women (22 percent are men).

Women outnumber men in both locations. Many beneficiaries (44 percent) are above the age of

55 again in both sites. The second largest group consists of beneficiaries aged 45-54. Only five

percent of beneficiaries in site 1 and 10 percent in site 2 are under the age of 25. In terms of race,

the first location is 100 percent Latino while the second location is 95 percent African American

with 5 percent choosing the option “other” (this is obviously a statistically significant difference

between the two sites). Household sizes for beneficiaries are small in both sites with an average of

only two adults and one child per household.

6

Table 4: Demographic Profile (%) Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Gender

Men 21.52 16.22 26.19 0.320

Women 78.38 83.78 73.81

Age

Under 25 7.69 5.26 10.00 0.207

25-34 8.97 15.79 2.50

35-44 12.82 10.53 15.00

45-54 26.92 21.05 32.50

55+ 43.59 47.37 40.00

Race

African American 48.10 - 95.00 0.000

Latino 49.37 100.00 -

Other 2.53 - 5.00

Household Size

Adults 2.27 2.39 2.15 0.223

Children 0.97 1.05 0.90 0.767

Source: Authors.

Most beneficiaries are unemployed or retired/inactive with only one in ten employed (with

a marginally statistically significant difference between the two sites). Three fourths of the

beneficiaries declare earning less than US$15,000 per year and another fifth between US$15,000

and US$30,000. Clearly, most beneficiaries are poor. Close to half of the beneficiaries receive

government aid (mostly food stamps and disability checks), and half also participate in other

Central Union Mission programs, including the small thrift stores located at both sites. The lower

take-ups of government programs in site 1 may be related to immigration status (statistically

significant differences).

Table 5: Socio-Economic Profile (%) Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Occupation

Student 6.85 - 12.5 0.094

Employed 10.96 13.51 7.50

Unemployed 46.58 51.35 37.50

Retired/Inactive 35.62 35.14 42.50

Income

Under $15,000 77.22 81.08 73.81 0.138

$15K-$30K 20.25 13.51 26.19

Above $30,000 2.53 5.41

Govt. programs

Yes 45 31.58 57.14 0.022

No 55 68.42 42.86

CUM programs

Yes 46.25 34.21 57.14 0.040

No 53.75 65.79 42.86

Source: Authors.

4. Satisfaction among Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries were asked to rate the program on a scale from 1 to 4 (with 4 being excellent

and 1 being poor) in terms of (1) the variety of the food received; (2) the quality of the food

received; (3) the amount of the food received; and (4) the waiting time for receiving the food.

7

Roughly one third of beneficiaries rated these various aspects as excellent, and 40 percent gave

good ratings. Beneficiaries were slightly less satisfied with the amount of food received and most

satisfied with the short waiting time (at most 30 minutes and often much less). Beneficiaries in the

first site rated the program less well than those in the second site in most dimensions (statistically

significant differences) except for the amount of food received. In terms of overall appreciation

however the difference in ratings was not statistically significant. Thus, while Latino beneficiaries

were less satisfied in terms of specific aspects of the programs such as food variety and quality

(probably because the food provided is similar and both sites and less adapted to the cultural food

consumption habits of the Latino population), this did not translate into a statistically lower rate

of overall satisfaction with the program than in site 2. It could be however that with a larger sample

of observations, the differences in overall satisfaction rates between the two sites would have

become statistically significant, as there remain some differences between sites.

What did beneficiaries say in response to the open questions of the survey? In terms of

food items that beneficiaries would you like to receive more of, fruits and vegetables were

mentioned the most by far, followed by meat (such as chicken or turkey). Deserts, bread, rice,

beans, pasta, cereals, juice, milk, and other drinks were also occasionally mentioned. In terms of

the food items that beneficiaries would you like to receive less of, canned foods were mentioned

by many beneficiaries, especially in the first site. Pork was also mentioned by some beneficiaries

as an item that could be relied less on. The emphasis on the need for more fruits and vegetables

and less canned food is not surprising. But the program faces a trade-off here. The pantry is run at

very low cost by Central Union Mission using food available for free from the Capital Area Food

Bank. The food available for free does not necessarily include a lot of fruits or vegetables, even if

some fresh produce are often provided. It would be feasible to provide more fresh produce to

beneficiaries, but these would have to be purchased, which would then require more resources to

operate the program. There is thus a trade-off between cost and the variety in the food provided.

When beneficiaries were asked what they liked the most about the program, they

mentioned the frequency of the food distributions (typically beneficiaries receive food twice a

month, while some other programs in the city provide food only once a month), the availability of

clothing through the thrift stores, the fact that staffs are very helpful, friendly, and efficient, the

overall atmosphere, and the short waiting time. In the first site, several beneficiaries also enjoy the

fact that the pastor running the program from a church basement provides a few words before the

distribution with a prayer. As to what could be improved, many beneficiaries say nothing at all,

but some mention the need for healthier food (as already discussed), more clothing donations as

well as other items such as toiletries, among others.

8

Table 6: Satisfaction Rates (%) Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Variety

Poor 4.05 8.82 - 0.022

Average 22.97 32.35 15.00

Good 41.89 41.18 42.50

Excellent 31.08 17.65 42.50

Quality

Poor 1.35 2.94 - 0.023

Average 21.62 35.29 10.00

Good 44.59 41.18 47.50

Excellent 32.43 20.59 42.50

Amount of Food

Poor 6.76 8.82 5.00 0.267

Average 22.97 23.53 22.50

Good 41.89 50.00 35.00

Excellent 28.38 17.65 37.50

Waiting Time

Poor - - - 0.070

Average 16.22 26.47 7.50

Good 52.70 50.00 55.00

Excellent 31.08 23.53 37.50

Overall

Poor 1.35 0.00 2.50 0.128

Average 12.16 20.59 5.00

Good 39.19 41.18 37.50

Excellent 47.30 38.24 55.00

Average Ratings (1-4)

Food Variety 3.00 2.68 3.28 NA

Food Quality 3.08 2.79 3.33

Amount of Food 2.92 2.76 3.05

Waiting Time 3.15 2.97 3.30

Overall 3.32 3.18 3.45

Source: Authors.

Table 7 provides information about food use and wastage. Half of the beneficiaries do not

use all the food received. But the unused food is either given to others or exchanged. Only four

percent of beneficiaries throw away food, and there are statistically significant differences between

the two sites on how unused food is disposed of. While virtually all beneficiaries in site two give

the food they do not use to others, there is more variety in the ways unused foods are disposed of

among site 1 beneficiaries.

9

Table 7: Usage of the Food (%) Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Unused Foods

No 54.79 55.88 52.50 0.502

Yes 45.21 44.12 47.50

If so, Disposal Mode

Exchange 10.20 20.83 - 0.000

Give to Others 67.35 37.50 96.00

Throw Away 4.08 8.33 -

Donate Back 6.12 8.33 4.00

Other 12.24 25.00 -

Source: Authors.

5. Comparative Position

Less than a third of beneficiaries state that they participate in other food programs and less

than one in ten declare that the Mission’s food distribution program is worse than other similar

programs. By contrast two thirds of beneficiaries declare that this program is better than other

similar programs. Not surprisingly given previous results on satisfaction, more beneficiaries in site

1 rate the program less favorably in comparisons to other similar programs than is the case in site

2, but again these overall differences between the two sites are not statistically significant, as was

the case with overall satisfaction (yet as mentioned in the previous section, with a larger sample

size statistically significant differences in the assessment of the program in comparison to other

programs could have emerged between the sites).

Table 8: Comparative Position (%) Category Total Site 1 Site 2 χ2 test

Food from Other Organizations

No 70.51 76.92 64.1 0.214

Yes 29.49 23.08 35.9

Comparison to Other Organizations

Worse 8.47 19.05 2.63 0.127

Similar 23.19 19.05 31.58

Better 64.41 61.9 65.79

Source: Authors.

6. Conclusion

The objective of this paper was to provide a simple assessment of the clientele and

performance of a food pantry operating in two locations – one serving a Latino population and the

other an African American population. The results suggest that most beneficiaries are poor or

extreme poor. Many are above the age of 55 and many do not work. The program is thus successful

in reaching a highly vulnerable population. In terms of satisfaction levels, most beneficiaries are

fairly satisfied with the program, although ratings differed between the two sites. Yet while the

Latino population was less satisfied in certain dimensions, this did not translate into statistically

significant differences in overall satisfaction between the two sites (possibly because of limited

sample size). Areas for improvements include providing more fresh produce, but this would entail

cost, and thereby may not be an option if the program is to continue to serve as many beneficiaries

as it does. Overall, the results suggest good performance of the program, including in terms of the

quality of the service provided to beneficiaries.

10

References

Berner, M., T. Ozer, and S. Paynter, 2008, A Portrait of Hunger, the Social Safety Net, and the

Working Poor, Policy Studies Journal, 36(3): 403-20.

Bhattarai, G., P. A. Duffy, and J. Raymond, 2005, Use of Food Pantries and Food Stamps in Low-

Income Households in the United States, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2): 276-98.

Food Research Action Center, 2013, Food Hardship in America 2012: Data for the Nations, States,

100 MSAs, and Every Congressional District, Food Research Action Center, Washington,

DC.

Garasky, S., L. Morton, K. Greder, 2004, The Food Environment and Food Insecurity: Perceptions

of Rural, Suburban, and Urban Food Pantry Clients in Iowa, Family Economics and

Nutrition Review,16(2): 41-8.

Guo, B., 2009, Beyond the Public Safety Net: The Role of Nonprofits in Addressing Material

Hardship of Low-Income Households, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5):

784-801.

Jensen, J., C. Heflin, J. Hermsen, and S. Rikoon, 2011, Feeding the Hungry: Results from a Survey

of Food Pantry Directors in Mid-Missouri, Truman Policy Research Report 12-2011, Harry

S Truman School of Public Affairs.

Mosley, J., and L. Tiehen, 2004, The Food Safety Net after Welfare Reform: Use of Private and

Public Food Assistance in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Social Service Review,

78(2): 267-83.

Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson, 2010, Household Food Security in the United States, 2009,

Economic Research Report No. ERR-108, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, Washington, DC.

11

Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire

1. Is this your first visit to this program of Central Union Mission? Yes O No O (if yes, go to 3.)

If no, when did you first come? This year O In 2012 O In 2012 or before O

2. How often do you come to this program?

Every month O Once in two months O Once every 3 or 4 months O Less often O

3. How did you first hear about this program?

Referral agency O Friend or family member O Other O If other, please specify:________________

4. How satisfied are you with this program?

Poor Average Good Excellent Don’t know

Variety of the food received O O O O O

Quality of the food received O O O O O

Amount of the food received O O O O O

Waiting time to receive the food O O O O O

Overall O O O O O

5. Are there times that you receive food items that you are not able to use? Yes O No O

If yes, which food items do you not use?_____________________________________________________________

6. What do you do with the food items that you can’t use?

Exchange with others O Give to others O Throw away O Donate back to Central Union Mission O Other O

If other, please specify:__________________________________________________________________________

7. Which food items would you like to receive more of?________________________________________________

8. Which food items would you like to receive less of?_________________________________________________

9. What do you like most about this program?________________________________________________________

10. Is there anything we could improve in this program?________________________________________________

11. Do you currently receive food from other organizations? Yes O No O

If yes, which ones? _____________________________________________________________________________

12. How does this program compare with other food programs? Worse O Similar O Better O

Please explain why: _____________________________________________________________________________

13. Zip code ________ 14. Amount of time needed to come to the program _____________________________

15. Gender Male O Female O

16. Age Under 25 O 25-34 O 35-44 O 45-54 O 55 or above O

17. Occupation Student O Employed O Unemployed O Inactive/retired O

18. How many people currently live in your household? Adults _____ Children ______

19. Race African American O Asian O Hispanic O White O Other O

20. In the following brackets of income, where does your total household income fall?

Under $15,000 O $15,000- $30,000 O $30,000-$50,000 O Above $50,000 O

21. Do you receive any form of government support, like food stamps? Yes O No O If yes, which ones?______ _

22. Do you participate in other programs of Central Union Mission? No O If Yes, please specify: _____________

12

Appendix 2: Standard Errors

In order to simplify the tables, standard errors have not been provided in the tables.

However, because most of the variables take only values of one or zero, a simple formula can be

used to compute the standard errors of the means, given that all observations have the same

weight. Denoting the sample size by N, and individual values by xi, for variable x the estimated

mean and variance is

�̅� =1

𝑁∑ 𝑥𝑖

𝑁𝑖=1 and �̂�(�̅�) =

1

𝑁(𝑁−1)∑ (𝑥𝑖 − �̅�)2𝑁

𝑖=1 .

When xi takes values of zero or one, the variance simplifies into 𝜎2(�̅�)̂ =1

𝑁−1(�̅� − �̅�2)

with �̅� = 𝑀/𝑁 and M is number of observations with value one. The 95 percent interval of

confidence is:

Confidence interval = [�̅� − 2√1

𝑁−1(�̅� − �̅�2), �̅� + 2√

1

𝑁−1(�̅� − �̅�2) ].

The mean values �̅� are presented in the tables. The table below provides values of the

standard errors for different sample sizes and mean values. The overall sample size is 81, while

the sample size per site is about 40 (39 in one site, 42 in the other).

Annex Table: Standard Errors for Means of Dichotomized Variables

Mean Value Sample size: 40 Sample size: 81

0.05 0.0349 0.0244

0.1 0.0480 0.0335

0.15 0.0572 0.0399

0.2 0.0641 0.0447

0.25 0.0693 0.0484

0.3 0.0734 0.0512

0.35 0.0764 0.0533

0.4 0.0784 0.0548

0.45 0.0797 0.0556

0.5 0.0801 0.0559

0.55 0.0797 0.0556

0.6 0.0784 0.0548

0.65 0.0764 0.0533

0.7 0.0734 0.0512

0.75 0.0693 0.0484

0.8 0.0641 0.0447

0.85 0.0572 0.0399

0.9 0.0480 0.0335

0.95 0.0349 0.0244

Source: Authors.