second harvest food bank of lehigh valley and northeast ... · second harvest food bank began its...

Second Harvest Food Bank of Lehigh Valley and

Northeast Pennsylvania

Strategic Plan

2017 - 2022

Table of Contents

2

Executive Summary 3

About Second Harvest Food Bank 4

Our Vision and Mission 5

Our Impact 6

Strategic Planning Process 7

Community Needs and Trends 8

Strategic Initiatives 25

Meet the Unmet Need 26

Engage the Community 27

Nutritious Food 28

Operations 29

Nutrition Education 30

Service Capacity 31

Advocate for Justice 32

Appendices 33

Appendix A: Strategic Plan Survey and Focus Group Results 33

Appendix B: Municipal and County Data 47

Appendix C: Feeding America Map the Meal Gap Data 71

Appendix D: Foods to Encourage 72

Executive Summary

Second Harvest Food Bank of Lehigh Valley and Northeast Pennsylvania has been working to address food insecurity and prevent hunger in Lehigh, Northampton, Carbon, Monroe, Pike, and Wayne counties for 35 years. Since that time, the food bank has grown to increase its capacity to meet greater and more complex community needs. While ultimately Second Harvest imagines a world without hunger, one where all residents of the greater Lehigh Valley have regular access to an adequate nutritious food, we know that such a world does not reflect the current reality. Too many residents in the six counties served by Second Harvest continue to be food insecure,

and this is impacted by rising housing costs, unemployment, and poverty.

This plan was designed to build on Second Harvest’s unique assets – its facilities, relationships, and people – so that we can continue to respond to community needs over the next five years and beyond. It is an ambitious plan, but necessarily so given the depth and breadth of needs in our community. Over the next five years, Second Harvest will focus its efforts on seven strategic initiatives:

• Meet the unmet need and exceed Feeding America’s benchmark for Meals per Person in Need (MPIN) in all six counties served

• Engage individuals and businesses throughout the six counties to serve as allies and partners in the fight against hunger and food insecurity

• Improve the nutritional quality of food provided to the community through the food bank to facilitate better choices and promote positive health outcomes

• Expand nutrition education efforts so that low-income people with limited food budgets and time can improve the quality of foods they purchase, prepare, and eat

• Increase the service capacity of the regional food bank network so that all people in need have access to a sufficient amount and variety of nutritious food

• Improve food bank operations to meet or exceed food banking and warehousing standards so that resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible

• Strengthen the local food system and advocate for justice

These strategic initiatives are described in more detail throughout the plan with specific goals and action steps to guide implementation of the plan. A variety of data is also included in the plan to explain, support, and justify the significance of these strategic initiatives. This document will guide the food bank’s priorities and activities over the next five years.

3

About Second Harvest Food Bank

Second Harvest Food Bank began its mission to end hunger in October of 1982 as the Lehigh Valley Food Bank, a program of the Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley. Initially, distributions were made from the back of a rented truck until Bethlehem Steel Corporation donated warehouse space that was used for nearly four years. In 1986, a 7,600 square foot warehouse at 1138 North Godfrey Street in Allentown was purchased. The Food Bank remained there for seven years before moving to a new warehouse more than twice the size of the old one, located at 2045 Harvest Way in Allentown. Shortly after moving to this facility, the Lehigh Valley Food Bank changed its name to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Lehigh Valley and Northeast Pennsylvania as a result of the Food Bank’s partnership with Feeding America (formerly known as America’s Second Harvest), the nation’s largest hunger relief organization. Due to an increase in need and market changes which led to an increase in allowable food donations, Second Harvest outgrew the Allentown location and relocated to a 65,000 square foot facility in East Allen Township, PA in September 2015. Since 1982, the emergency food network has depended upon Second Harvest to be a leader in the region’s efforts to respond to the needs of people who are food insecure. The Food Bank serves six counties: Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, and Wayne.

4

Our Vision and Mission

Our vision is a hunger-free Lehigh Valley and Northeast Pennsylvania.

Our mission is to obtain food and distribute it to people in need through area non-profits and to provide resources for education and advocacy to end hunger.

The mission of the Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley is to improve the quality of life by building a community in which all people have access to economic opportunity, the ability to pursue that opportunity, and a voice in the decisions that affect their lives.

5

Our Impact

Since our inception in 1982, Second Harvest has been on the frontlines addressing food insecurity and behind the scenes advocating for more equitable public policy. During the past 10 years (2007 – 2016), we have achieved the following: • Distributed 60,480,000 of pounds of food • Distributed 6,470,096 pounds of fresh foods • Secured and distributed 12,064,990 pounds of donated

product • Distributed 204,408 Commodity Supplemental Food Program

(SUNShine) Boxes • Educated 1468 people about nutrition and food preparation

through Cooking Matters

In the most recently completed fiscal year (2016-2017), Second Harvest: • Distributed 8,372,000 million pounds of food • Provided food for 61,736 people each month • Provided 4,105 meals to 475 children through the Backpack

Buddies Program • Distributed 75,300 SUNShine Boxes to 2510 seniors • Facilitated 32 Cooking Matters courses with 360 participants

and 349 graduates. • Distributed six meals for every dollar donated • Provided enough food so that no one in need of assistance

was turned away from the emergency food network 6

Strategic Planning Process

The Second Harvest Food Bank Advisory Board led the process of developing this strategic plan. To ensure that the plan was representative of the community and its needs, the Advisory Board reviewed secondary data to understand community trends, gathered in-depth input through five focus groups, and collected quantitative and qualitative data through a survey. The focus groups and survey provided an opportunity for member agencies, donors, volunteers, and other partners to share their insights. Complete results from the survey and focus groups are included in Appendix A and secondary data for municipalities and counties served by Second Harvest can be found in Appendix B. A series of meetings were held with staff to assess their perception of needs as well as gaps in capacity and services provided. The objectives and goals in this plan reflect both internal and external input as well as the realities of funding, staff, space, and time constraints.

The plan was approved by the advisory board on September 21, 2017.

7

Community Needs and Trends

The six counties served by Second Harvest are rapidly changing. Along with these changes come new and expanded food insecurity-related needs. The population in the six-county area served increased by 126,492 people (14.53%) from 2000 to 2015. The charts below show the population increase that can be attributed to each county.

8

County Population Increase

Lehigh 44,666 (+14.31%)

Northampton 32,550 (+12.19%)

Carbon 5,832 (+9.92%)

Monroe 29,194 (+21.05%)

Pike 10,330 (+22.31%)

Wayne 3,920 (+8.21%)

Total 126,492 (+14.53%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Similarly, the number of households in each of the counties served has increased. The total increase in households was 37,708 — more than three times the number of households in the City of Easton. While the greatest growth in households occurred in Lehigh and Northampton counties (more than 23,000 households), the highest rate of increase was in Pike County (20.82%).

This growth in population has not contributed to increased prosperity, particularly for those who are most vulnerable. During this same time period (2000 to 2015), the poverty rate in the service area increased in every county, most dramatically in Pike, Monroe, and Lehigh counties. In

9

County Increase in Households

Lehigh 12,013 (+9.85%)

Northampton 11,296 (+11.11%)

Carbon 2,022 (+8.52%)

Monroe 7,789 (+15.73%)

Pike 3,632 (+20.82%)

Wayne 956 (+5.2%)

Total 37,708 (+11.33%)


other words, 40,639 additional people with household income below the federal poverty level now live in Second Harvest’s service area. Considering that many people who experience food insecurity have income above this level (the threshold for SNAP, WIC, and free school meals is 160% of poverty), the expanded need for food is overwhelming.

While the population in our service area increased by 126,492 people, the number of people with income below the federal poverty level increased by 40,639. During this same time, the number of people served by Second Harvest increased by just 36,694. This demonstrates that expansion in Second Harvest’s services is aligned with increased community need.

10

County Increase in People Below the

Poverty Line

Lehigh 18,640 (+66.35%)

Northampton 7,760 (+38.03%)

Carbon 1,536 (+27.88%)

Monroe 8,805 (+72.29%)

Pike 2,428 (+76.4%)

Wayne 1,470 (+28.31%)


The percent of the population who lives in poverty also increased in every county served by Second Harvest from 2000 to 2015. In addition, the percent of families with income below the federal poverty level increased in Lehigh, Northampton, Carbon, Monroe, and Pike counties; it decreased in Wayne County. Due to population growth during this time, the number of people with income below the poverty line increased by more than a quarter as indicated above despite this rate decrease.

11

County Percent of People in Poverty –

2000

Percent of People in Poverty –

2015

Lehigh County 9.3% 13.1%

Northampton County 7.9% 9.4%

Carbon County 9.5% 10.9%

Monroe County 9% 12.5%

Pike County 6.9% 9.9%

Wayne County 11.3% 12.9%


This dramatic increase in poverty, and its impact, has been influenced by a variety of social and economic factors. While the number of people in the civilian labor force in Second Harvest’s service area increased 19% from 2000 to 2015, the number of people who are unemployed increased 110%. The chart below shows the increase in the unemployment rate in all six counties. The unemployment rate increased in each county, and is now in the double digits in Monroe and Pike counties.

12

Area Percent of Families in Poverty

– 2000

Percent of Families in Poverty

– 2015




Monroe County 6.2% 9.4%




County 2000 Unemployment 2015 Unemployment




Monroe County 6.56% 11.97%




Despite these increases in poverty and unemployment, the region saw a modest increase in median household income. This increase was highest in Wayne and Carbon counties; however, the median income remains lower in these counties compared to the others. Given the increased poverty rate, these increases in median household income may be indicative of greater income inequality.

While these increases in median household income seem promising, the potential impact on reducing food insecurity is minimized due to rising expenses. The cost of living has increased along with the unemployment and poverty rates. From 2000 to 2015, the consumer price index rose 37.34%, the cost of food increased 47.74%, housing costs increased 41.21%, the cost of medical care increased 72.97%, gasoline prices increased 62.25%, and crude oil prices increased 66.13% (U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Department of Energy).

13

County 2000 Median

HH Income

2015 Median

HH Income

Increase

Lehigh County $43,449 $56,117 29.15%

Northampton County $45,234 $60,972 34.79%

Carbon County $35,113 $49,973 43.32%

Monroe County $46,257 $57,365 24.01%

Pike County $44,608 $60,180 34.91%

Wayne County $34,082 $49,919 46.47%


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

CPI Annual Average-All

CPI Annual Average-Food

CPI Annual Average-Housing

CPI Annual Average-Medical Care

Average Gas Price

Average Oil Price

The increase in housing prices has led to a dramatic expansion of the percent of households that are cost burdened — those that pay more than 30% of their income toward housing expenses. The chart below shows the increase in cost-burdened households in the six counties served from 2000 to 2015. More and more service area residents are using their limited incomes to meet increasing housing costs.

The dramatic increase in cost-burdened renters is related to market forces. From 2000 to 2017, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton MSA increased from $602 to $1,038 (+72.4%). In the Pike County, PA MSA, it increased from $734 to $1,144 (+55.9%). (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Again, even with the increase in median household income, this relatively high increase in housing expenses is detrimental to food security in our service area.

Throughout the six-county area served, there are specific municipalities that have greater than average need. The poverty and SNAP participation rates of these areas indicate that the six-county region served includes urban, suburban, and rural areas that have are in need of the food bank’s services. The data that follows is from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2000 and 2015.

14

County Increase in Cost-Burdened Renters

Increase in Cost-Burdened

Homeowners with a Mortgage

Increase in Cost-Burdened

Homeowners without a Mortgage

Lehigh County +9,533 (70.4%) +6,859 (56%) +2,159 (69.5%)

Northampton County +6764 (71.7%) +6,802 (59%) +2,228 (78.8%)

Carbon County +817 (45.8%) +1,464 (52%) +815 (96.7%)

Monroe County +2,541 (62.4%) +5,512 (63.4%) +1844 (147%)

Pike County +850 (84.7%) +1,249 (38.9%) +371 (60%)

Wayne County +2,448 (208.9%) +1,789 (97.7%) +1,136 (183%)


The following municipalities have a poverty rate greater than 10% (2015 data):

15

Bowmanstown 10.2

Buckingham Township 10.2

Palmerton 10.5

Jackson Township 10.5

Greene Township 10.5

Lower Towamensing Township 10.8

Weatherly 10.8

Hanover Township 11

Bangor 11.1

Penn Forrest Township 11.2

South Canaan Township 11.2

Wilson 11.3

Scott Township 11.3

Bethany 11.5

Pocono Township 11.6

Lehigh Township (Wayne) 11.6

Lebanon Township 11.7

Matamoras 11.9

Stroud Township 12.1

Canaan Township 12.1

Paupack Township 12.1

Tunkhannock Township 12.4

Porter Township 12.4

Glendon 12.5

Salem Township 12.5

Coplay 12.6

East Bangor 12.6

Banks Township 12.8

Manchester Township 12.9

Slatington 13.1

Mahoning Township 13.1

Smithfield Township 13.2

Delaware Township 13.3

Dreher Township 13.3

East Side 13.5

Mount Pocono 13.5

Tobyhanna 13.8

Jim Thorpe 13.9

Dyberry Township 14.2

Prompton 14.2

Lehigh Township (Carbon) 14.3

Barrett Township 14.3

West Easton 14.4

Chapman 14.5

Coolbaugh Township 14.5

Fountain Hill 14.6

Polk Township 14.8

Lehman Township 15.9

Bath 16

Shohola Township 16

Texas Township 16.7

Beaver Meadows 17.2

Mount Pleasant Township 17.2

Bethlehem 17.5

Catasauqua 17.6

Nesquehoning 19.2

Lansford 20.8

Portland 21.6

Waymart 21.9

Easton 22.3

Hawley 23.1

East Stroudsburg 25.3

Weissport 25.7

Starrucca 26.3

Allentown 26.5

Stroudsburg 34.7

Several municipalities in the six-county service area saw a dramatic increase in the poverty rate. The municipalities below had an increase in the poverty rate of 100% or greater:

16

Upper Nazareth Township 100



Bath 102.53

Lower Nazareth Township 114.29

Polk Township 114.49

Honesdale 117.69

Catasauqua 120

Salisbury Township 122.22

Beaver Meadows 126.32

Lausanne Township 126.89

Emmaus 134.29


Allentown 144.12

Hanover Township 150

Northampton 151.35

Shohola Township 158.06

Chapman 173.58

Weisenberg Township 173.91

Matamoras 197.5

Portland 260



Upper Milford Township 315.38

In addition, many municipalities experienced an increase in the number of people living in poverty. Please note that due to population changes, this is different from the change in the poverty rate. The chart below shows those municipalities in the service area that had an increase in the number of people living in poverty of 100% or greater:

17

Macungie 100

Wilson 102.28

Bath 104.29

Nesquehoning 107.54

Chapman 108.33

Parryville 113.79



Catasauqua 119.35

Lynn Township 123.33

Stroud Township 129.82

Price Township 131.21

Lower Nazareth Township 131.86

Salisbury Township 132.01


Emmaus 135.44

Allen Township 145.65

Lower Macungie Township 147.45

Polk Township 152.98

Mount Pleasant Township 155

Forks Township 163.24

Northampton 168.22

Portland 173.53

Middle Smithfield Township 176.27

Alburtis 177.78

Upper Saucon Township 180.1



Hanover Township 199.03

Matamoras 202.2


Weisenberg Township 230.21

Upper Nazareth Township 249.21


Upper Milford Township 339.13

Canaan Township 1832

There are several municipalities in the six-county service area that have a concentration of people in poverty. The following areas have at least 450 people who are below the federal poverty level:

18

Hellertown 451

Texas Township 452

Paupack Township 453

Nazareth 467

Washington Township (Lehigh) 470

Lower Saucon Township 475

Canaan Township 483

Dingman Township 495

Hamilton Township 499

Salem Township 519

Lehighton 539

Lehigh Township (Northampton) 543

Ross Township 543

Slatington 558

Mahoning Township 558

Palmerton 562

Upper Saucon Township 563

Barrett Township 590

Moore Township 609

Upper Macungie Township 616


Nesquehoning 633

Jim Thorpe 655

Forks Township 666

Fountain Hill 674

Jackson Township 726

Bethlehem Township 763

North Whitehall Township 768

Lansford 805

Salisbury Township 819

Palmer Township 836

Tunkhannock Township 837

Wilson 886

Northampton 920

Emmaus 930

Smithfield Township 967

Delaware Township 968

South Whitehall Township 977

Lower Macungie Township 1069

Penn Forrest Township 1086

Catasauqua 1145

Polk Township 1146

Tobyhanna Township 1171

Chestnuthill Township 1215

Pocono Township 1265

Honesdale 1381

Middle Smithfield Township 1409

Lehman Township 1672

Stroudsburg 1914

Whitehall Township 2198

Stroud Township 2289

East Stroudsburg 2522

Coolbaugh Township 2956

Easton 6020

Bethlehem 13,143

Allentown 31,604

These changes in the poverty rate are not necessarily consistent with SNAP participation rates. This indicator may reveal additional areas in need of increased food bank and member agency services. The chart below shows municipalities where the SNAP participation rate increased by at least 100% between 2000 and 2015:

19

Stroud Township 100

Paupack Township 100

Penn Forrest Township 101.96

Washington Township 102.5

North Catasauqua 115.38

Wind Gap 118.18

Bath 119.8


Bangor 121.79

Weissport 124.32

Chapman 128.89

Eldred Township 132.43

Lower Saucon Township 138.46


Cherry Ridge Township 144.07

Macungie 144.12

Dreher Township 144.26

Lehigh Township (Carbon) 153.45

East Allen Township 162.5

Chestnuthill Township 162.86

Dingman Township 163.33

South Whitehall Township 164.71


Northampton 175

Stroudsburg 175

Catasauqua 179.45

Milford Township 182.61


Coopersburg 192.31

Bethany 234.38

Waymart 237.33

Palmer Township 238.1

Forks Township 250

Upper Saucon Township 275

Paradise Township 283.33

Hellertown 292.59

Packer Township 312.5


Moore Township 346.67

Upper Milford Township 350

Ross Township 357.89

Lower Mount Bethel Township 450

Lehigh Township (Northampton) 500

Hanover Township 568.42


Allen Township 1350

Increases in the SNAP participation rate and number of households that participate are comparable; therefore, increases in the number of participants are not described here but can be found in Appendix B. In the following municipalities, more than 15% of the population participates in SNAP:

20

Tobyhanna Township 15.2

Scott Township 15.2

Fountain Hill 15.3

East Side 15.4

Freemansburg 15.5


Salem Township 15.5

Texas Township 15.5

Smithfield Township 15.8


Tunkhannock Township 16.1

Bangor 17.3

Slatington 17.4

Starrucca 17.9

Bethlehem 18.1


Nesquehoning 19.6

Catasauqua 20.4

Bath 22.2

Honesdale 22.2

Easton 23.3

Waymart 25.3

Lansford 25.7

Stroudsburg 26.4

Allentown 27.6

Weissport 41.5

Over the past 15 years (2000 to 2016), Second Harvest has experienced tremendous expansion in services to address these needs. For example:

• The number of people served each month through Second Harvest’s network has increased 146.77% (from 25,000 to 61,694) The pounds of food distributed each year has increased 114.63% (from 4.1 million to 8.8 million)

• The pounds of donated product that were solicited and distributed through the network increased 676.91% (from 380,000 pounds, or 9.27% of all pounds distributed, to 2,295,270 pounds, or 33.55% of all pounds distributed)

• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and Backpack Buddies were launched in 2003 and 2007, respectively, to meet the needs of seniors and children; since these programs were launched, an additional 24,000 CSFP boxes and 19,000 backpacks are distributed each year

• Cooking Matterstm was launched in 2010 to educate children, teens, and adults about nutrition and food preparation; in 2016, 375 people participated in this program

In addition, the pounds of perishable foods, such as dairy, meat, and produce, increased 12,324% from 2010 (14,364 pounds) to 2016 (1,818,069 pounds).

Despite this growth, the amount of food distributed per person served has decreased. In 2000, we provided 164 pounds of food per person served through our network — providing an average of 14.98% of each participant’s meals. In 2016, we provided 143 pounds of food per person served; this is an average of 13.03% of each participant’s meals.

In addition, Second Harvest has not met its target for meals per person in need (MPIN) in all of the counties served. As of the fourth quarter of 2016, Second Harvest is falling short of the goal of 50% of network median, even with the addition of TEFAP.

21

Without TEFAP With TEFAP Estimated Annual Poundage

Shortfall

Pike County 20.7% 26.6% 100,000

Wayne County 31.0% 39.8% 50,000

Source: Feeding America

22

Pike and Wayne counties are rural with insufficient infrastructure to effectively distribute food to people in need. The population of these counties is 56,632 and 51,645 respectively. Given the large geographic area, Pike County has a population density of 103.92 people per square mile while Wayne County’s population density is just 71.18. In comparison, other counties in Second Harvest’s service area have a population density of 169.44 (Carbon County), 276 (Monroe County), 810.5 (Northampton County), and 1033.57 (Lehigh County). There is a statistically significant positive correlation (.822, p=.05) between MPIN percent of network median and population density in the six-county service area.

In its annual Map the Meal Gap report, Feeding America estimates the percent of the total and child population in each county that is food insecure. According to these estimates, there are 98,870 food insecure people in Second Harvest’s service territory. During the 2015-2016 fiscal year, Second Harvest served an average of 61,694 people per month. This means that Second Harvest was able to reach at least 62% of food insecure people in its six-county territory. The chart below shows the estimated food insecurity rate and number of food insecure people in each of the counties served in 2015. Children represent about 35% of all food insecure people in the six counties.

Pike Wayne Carbon Monroe Northampton Lehigh

Population 56,632 51,645 64,634 167,881 299,616 356,756

Area (square

miles) 566.85 750.61 387.39 617.26 377.4 348.24

Area (land,

square miles) 544.96 725.60 381.46 608.29 369.67 345.17

Population

Density 103.92 71.18 169.44 276 810.5 1033.57

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and 2015 American Community Survey

County Food Insecurity

Rate

Food Insecure

Individuals

Child Food

Insecurity Rate

Food Insecure

Children

Lehigh 9.5% 33,750 16% 13,130

Northampton 9.6% 28,800 14.9% 9,340

Carbon 10.8% 7,000 18.9% 2,450

Monroe 10.8% 18,200 15.7% 5,750

Pike 9.4% 5,320 16.4% 1,900

Wayne 11.2% 5,800 18.8% 1,750

Total 98,870 34,320

Source: Map the Meal Gap 2017, Feeding America

Despite the trends noted above, Feeding America data suggest that both the total food insecurity rate and the child food insecurity rate have declined over the past two years. Because their estimates are based on median income, and this measure saw a local increase comparative to other variables, the results may be a bit skewed. Even with population growth, the number of food insecure people in Second Harvest’s service area is estimated by Feeding America to have decreased by 15.83% since 2013. During the same time, the number of projected food insecure children decreased 21.7% (2015 Map the Meal Gap; 2017 Map the Meal Gap). The chart below shows the decrease in the number of food insecure people and children in Second Harvest’s service territory over the past two years. The smallest decline in food insecure people and children was in Wayne County (-7.64% and -17.06%, respectively).

23

Through its survey and focus group, Second Harvest assessed the community’s perception of community needs and trends. Respondents noted demographic trends (larger families, more grandparents raising grandchildren, an increase of eastern European immigrants and Spanish-speaking families, increased need in the suburbs), the needs of specific groups (more veterans are in need of assistance, seniors are in need of access to healthier foods, more working poor are turning to the network for assistance), and opportunities for education (people don’t know how to talk about poverty, the general population isn’t aware of food insecurity needs — particularly in the suburbs — and the public holds misperceptions about people who use SNAP and the emergency food network). Respondents also expressed concern about the threat of government funding cuts and reiterated earlier findings that housing and other expenses are increasing. Complete results can be found in Appendix A.

24

Strategic Initiatives

Second Harvest has identified the following strategic initiatives for 2017-2022:

• Meet the unmet need and exceed Feeding America’s benchmark for Meals per Person in Need (MPIN) in all six counties served

• Engage individuals and businesses throughout the six counties to serve as allies and partners in the fight against hunger and food insecurity

• Improve the nutritional quality of food provided to the community through the food bank to facilitate better choices and promote positive health outcomes

• Expand nutrition education efforts so that low-income people with limited food budgets and time can improve the quality of foods they purchase, prepare, and eat

• Increase the service capacity of the regional food bank network so that all people in need have access to a sufficient amount and variety of nutritious food

• Improve food bank operations to meet or exceed food banking and warehousing standards so that resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible

• Strengthen the local food system and advocate for justice

25

Strategic Initiative: Meet the Unmet Need

Meet the unmet need and exceed Feeding America’s benchmark for Meals per Person in Need (MPIN) in all six counties served

Goal: Secure new product donors to increase the quantity of food available to the network

Actions:

• Create and staff a food solicitor position

• Increase quantity of product received through the retail pickup program by 10% each year for three years

• Build relationships with new local donors outside of the Feeding America network

Goal: Focus efforts on currently underserved counties of Pike, Wayne, and Carbon

Actions:

• Establish eight new member agencies in Pike and Wayne counties

• Encourage established sites to expand their hours and/or days of operation

• Increase delivery frequency to agencies in underserved counties

• Explore the feasibility of launching a Mobile Pantry Program

Goal: Improve the local administration of TEFAP and SFPP in Carbon, Monroe, Pike, and Wayne counties

Actions:

• Develop relationships with local elected officials to strengthen the emergency food

network and increase the volume of food that is distributed

• Educate elected officials about the benefits of having Second Harvest administer TEFAP and SFPP allocations

• Create local support by building the members agencies’ understanding of the benefits of having Second Harvest administer TEFAP and SFPP allocations

26

Strategic Initiative: Engage the Community

Engage individuals and businesses throughout the six counties to serve as allies and partners in the fight against hunger and food insecurity Goal: Grow the development program to meet community and organizational needs Actions: • Develop and implement a comprehensive, long-term development and marketing plan • Develop a clearly articulated case for support • Expand the use of data analysis to improve and target fundraising efforts • Streamline and enhance the contribution recognition process

Goal: Increase individual donors from 3.6 to 10 per 1000 residents Actions: • Identify and engage new and existing individual and business donors to expand and

strengthen the food bank’s base of support • Provide donors with new ways to contribute, such as accepting credit card payments

through direct mail • Promote monthly and online giving opportunities • Cultivate deeper relationships with new and major donors through regular personal and

impersonal contact • Develop a strategy to increase the net revenue of Empty Bowls to $100,000 by 2022 Goal: Develop a stronger program to recruit, retain, and recognize volunteers Actions: • Create and staff a volunteer coordinator position • Participate in opportunities for professional development, volunteer recruitment and

recognition through the Volunteer Center of the Lehigh Valley • Recognize volunteers through an annual event and incentives • Highlight the contributions of volunteers through the printed newsletter, website, and

social media Goal: Expand and enhance the visibility of the food bank and its brand throughout the six-county area served Actions: • Continually refresh the website with news and important updates for multiple audiences • Increase social media activity to educate the community about Second Harvest and the

services it offers • Distribute newsletters and other mailings to existing and prospective supporters • Partner with local news media through events and print or broadcast stories to highlight the

food bank’s work and engage the broader community • Partner with community-based organizations such as United Way and member agencies to

highlight the impact of Second Harvest’s services in each county

27

Strategic Initiative: Nutritious Food

Improve the nutritional quality of food provided to the community through the food bank to facilitate better choices and promote positive health outcomes

Goal: Distribute at least 40% “highly nutritious foods” (perishable foods) and 77% “foods to encourage” through member agencies by 2022 (see Appendix D for an

explanation of foods to encourage)

Actions:

• Increase the pounds of fresh and perishable food distributed by 10% each year

• Increase the pounds of fresh produce distributed by 10% each year

Goal: Increase the availability and variety of fresh produce

Actions:

• Maximize the use of PASS funding to source fresh produce through contract growing and advance purchase agreements

• Strengthen relationships with local farmers to increase fresh produce donated by 25,000 pounds per year

• Secure sufficient financial resources to participate in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Cooperative (MARC) mixing center

• Replicate CACLV’s community gardening initiative in Easton to promote self-reliance, social cohesion, and fresh food access throughout the Lehigh Valley

Goal: Develop and implement the “stop light” nutritional assessment system in alignment with Feeding America

Actions:

• Develop and maintain a nutrition policy

• Identify levels of sugar, sodium, and saturated fat in distributed product to establish a baseline for future goal setting

• Establish relationships with vendors already implementing the stop light program

• Educate product donors about the nutritional needs of program participants and Feeding America requirements

28

Strategic Initiative: Nutrition Education

Expand nutrition education efforts so that low-income people with limited food budgets and time can improve the quality of foods they purchase, prepare, and eat

Goal: Increase the number of individuals participating in nutrition education programs by 25% by 2022

Actions:

• Identify and develop relationships with new partners

• Expand Cooking Matters classes to Monroe and Carbon counties

• Implement a train-the-trainer model for Cooking Matters classes to reach more people

• Expand partnerships with colleges and health networks to increase program reach and enhance content and delivery

• Expand the Cooking Matters at the Store program to educate more low-income individuals about grocery store shopping strategies

• Launch a Cooking Matters at the Market program to expose more low-income people to local farmers’ markets and educate them about purchasing local produce

Goal: Expand the child nutrition program to offer new services and serve more people

Actions:

• Create and distribute written and multimedia child nutrition education materials for use by both pantries and participants

• Create and distribute a child nutrition guide and recipe book

Goal: Reduce food waste by educating participants about sell by, best by, and use by dates

Actions:

• Create written material to educate member agencies and the people they serve about how to interpret sell by, best by, and use by dates

• Distribute this written guidance to all member agencies

Goal: Demonstrate the impact of the Cooking Matters program

Action:

• Partner with a local hospital and/or university to develop a new system to measure program results

• Communicate program results with donors, volunteers, and the local healthcare community

29

Strategic Initiative: Service Capacity

Increase the service capacity of the regional food bank network so that all people in need have access to a sufficient amount and variety of nutritious food

Goal: Ensure that people in need have access to the emergency food network

Actions:

• Coordinate scheduling of food pantries so that each community has food available on multiple days and at various times of the day

• Use GIS mapping to ensure that the presence of food pantries align with community need and to identify areas in need of new or more service

Goal: Increase member agencies’ access to, and ability to distribute, fresh foods

Actions:

• Develop a system to coordinate receipt and distribution of produce to reduce spoilage

• Create and maintain an inventory of member agency cold storage needs

• Distribute refrigerators and freezers to increase cold storage capacity at member agencies prioritizing those in Carbon, Pike, and Wayne counties

• Identify and secure funding to obtain and distribute refrigerators and freezers

Goal: Coordinate access to professional development opportunities for member agencies

Actions:

• Increase the number of member agency volunteers who receive food safety training

• Organize a fundraising, marketing, and outreach training for member agencies once per year

Goal: Provide technical assistance to member agencies to improve their operations

Actions:

• Provide resources, industry news, training presentations, and advocacy alerts through the website and add new materials at least once per month

• Share ideas from other food banks and emergency food providers in the agency newsletter

• Develop and distribute model policies and procedures to improve administration, organization, and service delivery at food pantries

Goal: Improve member agencies’ understanding and use of online ordering and reporting

Actions:

• Provide new member agencies and new key volunteers with online ordering and reporting training with written materials

• Organize online ordering training at least once per year

• Organize online reporting training at least once per year

30

Strategic Initiative: Operations

Improve food bank operations to meet or exceed food banking and warehousing standards so that resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible

Goal: Improve inventory control systems to reduce waste and shrinkage

Actions:

• Maintain an inventory adjustment percentage below 3%

• Implement a bar code scanning system to improve inventory control, the ordering process, and to track location zones

• Develop partnerships with other food banks to distribute excess product

Goal: Increase dry and cold storage capacity

Actions:

• Purchase and install racking to increase dry food storage capacity

• Add a second freezer and cooler unit

• Redesign warehouse layout to improve capacity, efficiency, and safety

Goal: Improve operational efficiency

Actions:

• Optimize delivery and product pickup routes using GPS

• Improve adherence to delivery and product pickup schedules

• Purchase and install a pallet wrapper

• Add an additional fleet vehicle

Goal: Create a positive work environment where high performing teams flourish

Actions:

• Develop a comprehensive onboarding program

• Increase the average length of employment by 20%

• Provide opportunities for key staff to participate in professional development opportunities each year

• Improve internal communication so that employees are informed of all major food bank activities

• Assess warehouse staff wages and benefits each year to ensure they are competitive with the current labor market

31

Strategic Initiative: Advocate for Justice

Strengthen the local food system and advocate for justice Goal: Identify and attempt to influence public policies that impact hunger and food insecurity Actions: • Pursue opportunities to advance public policy related to poverty, food access, and

nutrition as they arise • Promote and support the efforts of regional and national partners such as Feeding

Pennsylvania, Feeding America, Hunger-Free Pennsylvania, Food Research Action Center, and MAZON

• Develop strong working relationships with elected officials through visits and events Goal: Engage with and support local and regional food system alliances Actions: • Continue to actively participate in the Lehigh Valley Food Policy Council • Promote the creation and expansion of food system alliances in Monroe, Pike,

Carbon, and Wayne counties as described in the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s Blueprint for a Hunger-Free Pennsylvania (2016)

Goal: Educate donors, volunteers, and the community about the connections between food insecurity and economic justice Actions: • Use data and stories to demonstrate the connections between food insecurity and

other economic justice issues • Share articles about food insecurity and economic injustice through the food bank

newsletter, website, and social media accounts • Pursue opportunities to educate local businesses, communities of faith, elected

officials and their staff, and individuals through interaction with food bank leadership, engagement in food bank initiatives, and printed materials

Goal: Educate the community about SNAP and assist potential participants with applications Actions: • Organize a public education campaign to reduce the stigma associated with SNAP

participation Ensure that all eligible households in the six counties served have access to assistance with SNAP applications

• Participate in community events to educate individuals in need and service providers about how to apply for SNAP benefits

32

Appendix A: Strategic Plan Survey and Focus Group Results

Introduction

To inform its new strategic plan, Second Harvest reached out to member agencies, volunteers, donors, and other key partners to request input through focus groups and surveys. A total of five focus groups were conducted and surveys were completed by 127 individuals.

Focus Groups

The following focus groups were held to obtain input for the strategic plan:

March 22, 2017 Member Agencies (Allentown, PA)

March 24, 2017 Member Agencies (Bethlehem, PA)

March 27, 2017 Donors and Volunteers (Nazareth, PA)

March 29, 2017 Member Agencies (Lehighton, PA)

March 30, 2017 Member Agencies (Tannersvil le, PA)

Three donors and one volunteer participated in the focus group on March 27. More than 125 representatives from member agencies attended the four focus groups held throughout the month. In addition, three individuals who were unable to attend emailed their suggestions.

Each group was asked a series of open-ended questions to gather input in a variety of areas. The following represents a summary of the discussion that took place. In addition to the suggestions listed below, several participants expressed their appreciation for the good work done by Second Harvest and its staff.

Community Trends

• People who might be able to help and don’t talk about poverty because they don’t have the language to do so

• There were discrepancies about the need increasing and decreasing; a few agencies in Easton reported decreased need while others generally noted that the need for food assistance is increasing

• A lot of programs are established in the cities; more assistance is needed in the suburbs

• People are also unaware that there is such a great need in suburban areas; more marketing is needed – possibly through grocery stores

• There is a perception among donors that people who use SNAP make poor food choices; this is an opportunity for education

• More Spanish-speaking families

• Larger families

• Senior citizens are interested in receiving more fresh fruits and vegetables

• More veterans

• More grandparents raising kids

• USDA program funding cuts will create more local need

33

• Utility rates are increasing so more people need to choose between heat and food; food insecurity has traditionally been linked to unemployment and low wages but now it is more about increasing expenses

• If federal funding is cut many service providers will have increased difficulty meeting the need

• Prescription costs are increasing

• People can’t afford to work because they will lose their benefits

• Food pantry shelves are more full now; the community is responding to the need by organizing food drives

• More food pantry participants are arriving in “nice cars”

• More people who are working poor; need to expand hours to accommodate people who work

• It is difficult for pantries to be open in the evening in winter because volunteers are reluctant to come out and there are l iability issues

• More people from Russia and Poland

• More need in the summer when schools are closed

Agency Relations

• Communicate via email instead of sending mailings – waste of money

• Send information by email and put backup on website (formatted so it can be viewed on mobile devices)

• Post agency newsletter on social media

• Add more success stories to the agency newsletter; what other pantries are doing that works well; best practices

• Agencies would like to report their numbers online or via email

• Share Feeding America, FRAC, and other important emails/information with member agencies

• Free Friday doesn’t work for all agencies due to timing; a different day should be scheduled to accommodate agencies that operate later in the week

• Food pantries have a lot of flexibility to do things in their own way, but this can be confusing – would l ike opportunities to share ideas and resources with others in the network

• The rules aren’t always clear; sometimes Second Harvest’s guidance is different from PDA

• Volunteers at pantries take things literally they really need clear information about what can and can’t be done; there is also confusion among participants about what is and is not allowed

• The manual doesn’t address all situations

• Agencies want examples of best practices

• Agencies want information about other local pantries to distribute to people in need

• Agencies want new sites to be strategically placed so that there is not overlap and so that all areas are covered; this will reduce competition and animosity between food pantries and make fundraising and direct product donations easier

• Would like to see more collaboration among member agencies

• More agencies would like to know about the retail pickup program

• Second Harvest should be the convener to promote better communication and collaboration throughout the emergency food network

• Assign mentor organization for new member agencies

• Organize quarterly informal networking meetings for member agencies

• Create and distribute a roster of member agency information

• Provide downloadable PDF documents for agencies on the Second Harvest website

• Create a message board for agencies on the new website

• Rules for Free Friday change frequently which is confusing

• Agencies want more flexibility in scheduling pickups

• Agencies in the northern tier are interested in a regional warehouse to reduce delivery/pickup time and expense

• Put training presentations for member agencies on the website

34

Food Pantry Facilities

• More refrigeration is needed to distribute fresh fruits and vegetables

• Smaller facilities could pool their resources to obtain larger quantities of donated product

• Second Harvest should establish a relationship with an appliance vendor so that member agencies can purchase refrigerators and freezers at a discount

Product

• Member agencies are interested in more fresh fruits and vegetables; expand efforts to connect with local farmers

• More frozen meat is desired

• Non-food items including toiletries and paper products are in high demand; Second Harvest should solicit contributions of these items

• More foods for people with limited cooking facil ities are needed

• Food pantry participants need other items like pet food, laundry detergent, and clothing

• A clearinghouse is needed for larger items that people need like a stove

• Improve logistics of produce distribution so that less is wasted due to spoilage

• More cheese, eggs, milk, yogurt

• More milk is needed in the summer

• More culturally diverse food products are needed

• Need foods to accommodate special diets, allergies, i l lnesses, gluten free, religious practices, etc.

• Would like to see more fish

• More low-sodium and sugar-free products

• A lot of pantry participants are homeless or do not have utilities to cook; foods that they can eat and prepare are needed

• Less candy

• Sometimes member agencies get things that they didn’t order and can’t use

• Agencies should have equitable access to products offered by Second Harvest, especially fresh foods

• More spices and herbs

• A lot of expired baby food is received

• Less bulk product

• Paper or reusable bags are needed

• More beverages and coffee

• The quality of foods in SUNShine boxes should be improved

• Provide pouches instead of cans so that it is easier for seniors to manage the SUNShine boxes

• Educational materials about sell by/best by dates are needed for food pantry participants

Nutrition Education

• Provide more recipes

• Create a recipe book that includes culturally diverse foods

• Provide sample recipes that can be prepared on a budget and using foods available through Second Harvest

• Reaching parents of younger children is critical because older children will be less likely to try new things

• Recipes on Second Harvest website

• Agencies want best practices for how to buy various foods inexpensively

35

Onl ine Ordering

• Using all caps makes member agencies feel that they are being yelled at

• More accurate product descriptions are needed, particularly with sizing

• Product descriptions should distinguish between bulk and individual s ize products

• Provide information about number of people/meals per pound

• Lis t information about pounds per box – information should be as complete as possible

• Produce poundage descriptions are confusing

• Get rid of old announcements – jumbled up and di fficult to read - and send emails with relevant information ins tead

• Inventory i s not always up to date

• Takes a lot of time to load/process information as i t is entered

• It takes too long to clear out completed orders ; makes i t di fficult to place the next order in time for those who order weekly

• Describe perishability of produce so that i t does not need to be thrown away

• The cart gets emptied i f an agency leaves the ordering page

• Make sure all organizations have written step-by-step instructions about how to use the online ordering system

• Add a running total to the online order so agencies know how much their order will cost; i t is confusing to know what does and does not have a shared maintenance fee

• Ordering produce is a challenge because of timing especially for those agencies that only order once a month; i t is often rotten upon arrival ; is i t possible to submit two orders – one for dry goods and the other for fresh products?

Del iveries

• It is cri tical that member agencies receive accurate delivery time estimates so they can schedule volunteers ; del iveries are as much as three hours late – need a ½ hour window

• Rural pantries would like more frequent deliveries and assistance with the cost of deliveries and pickups

• Coordinate scheduling of food pantries that serve the same area so that food is available on a more regular basis

• Provide a map and GPS to drivers, especially those who are new and unfamiliar with the route

• Drivers should call agencies when they are running late

• Send text reminders for deliveries

• Send an experienced driver out with new drivers to show them the route – new drivers need better tra ining

• Incorporate speci fic limitations of each si te when developing the schedule i .e. does the facili ty have space for a pal let to be dropped or does the driver need to wait while i t is unloaded

Volunteers

• Schedule and organize volunteer events so that people with di fferent abilities can participate and so that the ski lls and s trengths of a ll volunteers are used

• Communicate with volunteers about group needs at least a month ahead of time

• Increased outreach is needed to publicize volunteer opportunities and recruit new volunteers

• Need to make volunteers aware of the need to participate outside of the holiday months

• Donors are unaware of opportunities to volunteer

• Volunteers l ike to have direct contact with people who benefit and see the results of their involvement

• Second Harvest should take a greater role in advocating for the volunteer needs of member agencies – consider creating a co-op or network to connect volunteers with opportunities throughout the region

• Second Harvest should refer volunteers to member agencies if they are unable to volunteer at the food bank

• Volunteers at pantries are getting burned out

36

Outreach and Advocacy

• Member agencies need help finding people who are in need of assistance including access to data and strategies to overcome stigma

• Second Harvest should provide information about other community services to member agencies so they have this information available for participants

• Need ways to provide information to participants who do not have a phone or internet access

• Outreach needs to be in multiple languages

• Create a flyer for each food pantry and make this available on the website

• Second Harvest should provide information about what it does to pantry participants

• Second Harvest should more proactively communicate with other organizations to let them know what it does

• Share information about opportunities for advocacy in bite size, digestible portions

• Expand Backpack Buddies to Monroe and Pike counties

Marketing/Advertising

• Second Harvest is not doing an effective job of tell ing its story which impacts its ability to serve

• Second Harvest needs to do a better job of educating the community about food insecurity

• Second Harvest should better publicize what it does so that more people get involved and/or donate goods, services or money

• Second Harvest should update its website on a regular basis and send a newsletter more frequently.

• Second Harvest needs to have a stronger social media presence

• Ask ad agencies and bil lboard companies to do pro bono work to help promote the food bank

• Work with radio to share information about where people can turn for food assistance

• Member agencies need help with marketing and outreach

• Educate the community about hunger by using visuals and stories to tell the story of people in need of food assistance

• There are stereotyped views of who turns to the emergency food network for assistance

• Second Harvest should dispel myths about hunger and people who are hungry

• Member agencies need printed promotional materials about Second Harvest and about hunger in the community

• Need to educate the community that kids don’t have access to fresh foods and that many children have never had fresh fruit

• Need to educate businesses about the needs in our community

• Second Harvest should work with agencies to tell the story of food insecurity in the region including success stories of how we help people in times of need and then they no longer need us; create opportunities for agencies to share stories

• Create bumper stickers for cars to raise awareness about hunger and visibility of Second Harvest

• Post food industry news on website

Fundraising

• Need to hold cashiers who assist with Check out Hunger accountable

• More communication is needed with existing donors to educate them about what Second Harvest is doing

• Send an email newsletter to those who have email; otherwise, communicate with donors through a printed newsletter

• Donors are drawn to SHFB because of its mission more than through their social relationships

• Look at Allentown Rescue Mission materials as samples of using storytell ing for fundraising

• Donors do not want to receive repeated requests for funds; feel that phone calls are too aggressive

• Second Harvest needs to help donors feel more proud to be a part of what they are doing

37

• Need to promote opportunities for monthly giving and online giving

• Member agencies need help with fundraising

• Better communication is needed with member agencies during the Letter Carriers’ Food Drive; more post offices should be encouraged to participate; the event should be better promoted through social media; need to better inform the community about the event with more consistent distribution of post cards

• Second Harvest should create more partnerships with national partners

• Member agencies would like more information about local sponsors i.e. if a local school/organization in their area does a food drive that benefits their organization

• Second Harvest should pair product donors directly with member agencies

• Some agencies are struggling to cover the shared maintenance fee and are doing fundraising to cover these costs; capacity building assistance is needed; they did not have time to plan or budget for this increased expense

• Provide fundraising guidance to member agencies; for example, are they permitted to use the Second Harvest logo?

• Provide sample fundraising materials, letters, etc. to member agencies

• Organize a fundraising workshop for member agencies

• Provide assistance in locating grants and assistance writing grants

Leadership

• Need to recruit more people for the advisory board (suggestion from a Cornucopia Society member)

Surveys

Surveys were distributed in both print and electronic formats to member agencies, partners, donors, and volunteers. The survey was completed by 127 individuals. Most (61.9%) respondents were member agencies; others were volunteers (14.29%), donors (12.69%), members of the advisory board (3.97%), or community partners (2.38%). The greatest number of respondents l ived and/or worked in Northampton County; however, all six counties served were represented in the survey.

Most respondents have been involved with Second Harvest for at least five years; 33.86% have been involved for between five and ten years and 29.92% have been involved for more than 10 years.

38

Second Harvest assessed respondents’ familiarity with each of its programs and services. Respondents were most familiar with TEFAP, SFPP, and advocacy. They were least familiar with PASS, Fill a Glass with Hope, and Cooking Matters.

There was a strong correlation between length of involvement with Second Harvest and familiarity with Cooking Matters (r(119)=.297, p<.01), SUNShine boxes (r(124)=.195, p<.01), TEFAP (r(125)=.36, p<.01), SFPP (r(123)=.351, p<.01), Advocacy (r(120)=.341, p<.01), and SNAP Outreach (r(122)=268, p<.01). There were statistically significant positive relationship between the importance of nutrition education and familiarity with Cooking Matters (r(119)=.203, p<.05) as well as between the importance of programs for children and familiarity with Backpack Buddies (r(121)=.291, p<.01).

A correlation was not found between those who felt that advocacy to improve policies/expand programs and raising awareness about hunger are important and those who are familiar with the food bank’s advocacy efforts. There was also not a correlation between those who felt that programs for seniors are important and those who are familiar with SUNShine boxes. This may indicate that there are additional opportunities to connect and engage donors, volunteers, and the member agency network in the food bank’s various programs according to their interests.

Familiarity with various food bank programs was further assessed by using a one way ANOVA to determine if there were significant differences among type of respondent. A statistically significant difference between groups was found in respondents’ familiarity with Backpack Buddies (p=.001), Cooking Matters (p=.000), SUNShine Boxes (p=.000), Fill a Glass with Hope (p=.014), TEFAP (p=.000), SFPP (p=.000), advocacy (p=.035), and SNAP Outreach (p=.002). Homogenous subset tables reveal that advisory board members are the most different from other types of survey respondents. The only exception is SFPP; member agencies also indicated a greater familiarity with this program than other respondent groups. The advisory board responses were not significantly different for PASS; there may be a need to educate them about this program. As representatives and cheerleaders for Second Harvest, it is important that the advisory board express a great deal of familiarity with the food bank’s various programs as they did in this survey. The table below shows the respondent groups’ familiarity with various Second Harvest programs. An ‘up’ arrow means that the group tends to be more familiar with the program and a ‘down’ arrow means they are less familiar.

39

Community

Partners

Member

Agencies

Donors Volunteers Advisory

Board

Backpack Buddies

Cooking Matters

SUNShine Boxes

Fill a Glass with Hope

PASS There were no statistically significant differences

TEFAP

SFPP

Advocacy

SNAP Outreach

Narrative comments revealed the following ideas and suggestions:

• Expand Backpack Buddies to additional areas

• Backpack Buddies is very expensive for each person served

• Cooking Matters should be open to senior citizens

• I didn’t know you did advocacy

Respondents were then asked to rate the importance of a number of activities to Second Harvest’s mission. Helping low-income people access sufficient food, raising awareness about hunger, and soliciting food contributions from the food industry were found to be most important to the mission while nutrition education, improving collaboration among people and organizations that are concerned about hunger, and advocating to improve policies and expand programs were the least important; however, all areas in the survey were rated as ‘very important’ or ‘important’ by a majority of respondents.

There was a statistically significant negative relationship between length of involvement with Second Harvest and importance in only one area —distribution of fresh foods (r(125)=-.252; p<.01); in other words, fresh food distribution is generally less important to those who have a longer history with the food bank. The importance of various food bank activities were generally viewed similarly across various respondent groups.

40

Some narrative comments clarified respondents’ responses to this question:

• More nutrition education sites are needed for people who don’t drive

• Cooking seems to be a lost art – need to encourage more creative use of available food

• Too many organizations are providing duplicate services

• Soliciting food contributions from the food industry and community are a means to an end; not sure it is efficient

• Need to do outreach to agencies in the Valley to make them aware of the programs you provide

• People who use SNAP need non-food items like toilet paper, toothpaste, etc.

• (in response to programs for children/senior citizens) I’m not sure how age impacts being hungry or not; this should be about hungry people (and similarly) I am a veteran; I am not sure how that impacts me being hungry or not; this should be about hungry people

• Need a lot more places to help veterans

41

Second Harvest asked respondents to assess its performance in several areas. The strongest performing areas were reducing hunger, offering a variety of food to member agencies, and customer service. The lowest rated areas were developing the skills of low-income people, use of social media, and improving the self-sufficiency of low-income people. In many areas, respondents indicated that they did not know how Second Harvest was doing; this may reveal the need for additional education. There were no statistically significant differences among survey respondent groups regarding in their assessment of Second Harvest’s performance.

Second Harvest’s performance in the areas of reducing hunger and reducing feed waste was strongly correlated to familiarity with several programs as indicated in the chart below. This may mean that those who are most familiar with Second Harvest’s programs also feel that the food bank is effectively fulfilling its core mission.

There was a correlation between those who are familiar with SUNShine boxes and performance ratings for creating meaningful volunteer opportunities (r(123)=.203, p<.05) and recognizing the contributions of volunteers (r(124)=.195; p<.05). This may indicate that volunteers who volunteer to pack or distribute SUNShine boxes have had highly positive experiences.

The food bank’s performance in one-on-one communication was strongly correlated to familiarity with several programs/initiatives: Cooking Matters (r(119)=.275, p<.01); TEFAP (r(125)=.34, p<.01); SFPP (r(123)=.266, p<.01); and advocacy (r(120)=.243, p<.01). This might mean that those who are most aware of various food bank programs have more positive communication with the food bank; this could be due to a more expansive or deeper level of involvement.

Second Harvest’s performance in offering a variety of foods to members was strongly correlated with the importance of soliciting food contributions from the food industry (r(124)=.18, p<.05) and from the community (r(124)=.242, p<.01). The importance of soliciting food contributions from the community was strongly correlated with performance in reducing hunger (r(123)=.238, p<.01) and performance in reducing food waste (r(123)=.185, p<.05). Interestingly, neither of these variables was found to have a relationship with the importance of soliciting food contributions from the food industry. Perhaps this is an area for stronger communication and education with the food bank’s network of members and supporters.

42

Reducing Hunger

Performance

Reducing Food Waste

Performance

Familiar with Cooking Matters n/a r(118)=.207, p<.05

Familiar with SUNShine Boxes n/a r(123)=.185, p<.05

Familiar with TEFAP r(124)=.225, p<.05 r(124)=.368, p<.01

Familiar with SFPP r(122)=.187, p<.05 r(122)=.37, p<.01

Familiar with Advocacy r(119)=.206, p<.05 r(120)=.254, p<.01

Familiar with SNAP Outreach r(121)=.19, p<.05 r(121)=.291, p<.01

Narrative comments included:

• Reach out to member agencies to educate them about food waste

• When I volunteered at the food bank there was a lot of fresh food waste sitting outside

• Recent addition of eggs and milk is good

• We never know if a truck delivery will be early or late, sometimes up to four hours late

• Not having a delivery scheduling system, which causes trucks to be late, appears to suggest no concern for the volunteers waiting to unload a truck

• Staff are very friendly and helpful

• Recent online, real time ordering is a success

43

• Environmental stewardship is not the core mission; let someone else advocate for the environment

• Creating meaningful volunteer opportunities only matters if it advances the central mission of feeding hungry people

• We bid on an item for $500 on the bowls fundraiser and surprised we have not been further solicited beyond your thank you note and general emails; I work for a nonprofit and I would think a donation like this on the spot would have you look deeper at us

• Offer advocacy and educational information at the pantries

• Developing the skills of low-income people is not the core mission; it is important to stay focused on the mission

Second Harvest asked respondents to rank ten activities according to their importance as an area of focus over the next three years. The highest rated areas were becoming more environmentally friendly, improving the food bank’s visibility in the community to engage more donors and volunteers, and improving warehouse operations/facilities/vehicles. The lowest rated areas were ensuring that all people have access to a food pantry in their community, improving the nutritional value of foods distributed, and increasing participation in SNAP, school breakfast, and other government programs. These responses were a bit surprising given answers about priorities on other questions in the survey. It may be that respondents identified focus areas that reflected opportunities for improvement or expansion. For example, respondents may have felt that the food bank is already doing well in terms of ensuring people have access to a food pantry in their community and therefore focused attention is not needed in this area. It should be noted that this question was only answered by 104 respondents Several people contacted the food bank to report that this question was not correctly programmed in the online survey, the concept of ‘ranking’ versus ‘rating’ was confusing to several respondents despite the comprehensive directions that were provided.

44

Second Harvest asked respondents what the food bank does best. Most responses noted the everyday functions of the food bank such as distributing food or feeding people in need. Other responses included:

• Caring employees/good customer service

• Good communication

• Collaboration and cooperation

• Facilitating retail pickup

• Advocacy

• Increasing awareness

• Great new warehouse/efficient operations

• Online ordering

• Providing diverse food options

• Involving volunteer groups

• Soliciting food donations

• Helping seniors and children

• Making sure member agencies receive training

Second Harvest then asked respondents to share their ideas for what the food bank could be doing differently. Their suggestions included:

Product

• Greater variety of food

• More fresh foods

• More frozen meat

• Give more than three days’ worth of food at pantries

• Partner with local farms and community gardens; develop a way to use Second Harvest trucks to distribute fresh produce to local food pantries

• Better quality foods, smaller portions, and low salt items in CSFP boxes

• Provide products that would fulfill the CN requirements and then separate them on the order form for agencies who need to purchase CN for the agencies that need to purchase those items

Operations

• If it is on the inventory it should be sent, not told we are out of that

• Improve pantry distribution (delivery, communication, and scheduling)

• Be a little more tech savvy and streamline the order process for member agencies online; it’s very paper-based

• Develop a better billing system; bills are extremely confusing and hard to understand; they are not often up to date and correct

• Increase the reaction time of the online ordering; becomes frustrating and time consuming to complete orders; wait time between entries and the fact that those entries disappear is super frustrating

• Help agencies with logistics and storage issues

• Development of a truck delivery schedule that allows pantries to reasonably know when they may anticipate a delivery – this has been a serious problem for many years; four hours late with no notice or contract fails to acknowledge that pantry volunteers will not “work” at a pantry when they offer their time but end up standing around waiting for a delivery

45

Staffing/Communication

• Focus on internal relationships; the culture there is really tense and you can feel it as a customer; people don’t seem very happy (or happy to work there) and you can tell

• Need much improvement in the area of employees knowing what’s going on; whenever we call, no one seems to know anything

• Better communication

Marketing, Outreach, Partnerships, and Fundraising

• Community service bulletin on local TV of available food pantries

• Expand efforts to educate the community including participants

• Recruit more partners at all levels

• Offer more volunteering variety

• Have a presence in upscale communities’ supermarkets where customers can purchase and drop off items in a room with volunteer staffing; a visual presence and reminder signs would increase food sales, a win for the supermarket with product going to the food bank

• Participation in the Letter Carriers’ Food Drive has been diminishing, promote with USPS to get a greater return

• Marketing, thanking monetary and commodity donors, putting up billboards, issuing more communications, revising the website, promoting Empty Bowls

• Continued partnerships with grocery stores to eliminate good usable food from going to the landfills

• Develop outreach to the homeless

• Solicit more food donations from area warehouses to cut down on the massive amount of food thrown away; reduce waste so food is delivered to pantries rather than thrown away

• Make the community more aware of its mission to attract more donors and volunteers

• Explain a little clearer how the program works for new people; not assume you know how the system works

• Work cooperatively with local pantries on funding opportunities so we don’t complete for the same local resources

• Try to eliminate the shared maintenance fee for member agencies; creating a financial strain on our food bank/nonprofit agency

Agency Focus

• Find the cure for hunger; giving away free food addresses symptoms

• This survey concerns me…it looks like a non-profit searching for reasons to expand and diversity; important to stay focused on the mission – very efficient feeding of the hungry; the pitch about what it costs to distribute a pound of food is what attracted me to participate (donate at this level); the questions about the environment have no place here; improving the environment is a rich person’s cause; hunger is a poor person’s issue; let’s not try to save the planet; let’s just feed some hungry people and do that really, really well

46

Appendix B: Municipal and County Data

47

Population 2000 2015 Change - #

# # # %

Lehigh County 312090 356756 44666 14.31%

Northampton County 267066 299616 32550 12.19%

Carbon County 58802 64634 5832 9.92%

Monroe County 138687 167881 29194 21.05%

Pike County 46302 56632 10330 22.31%

Wayne County 47722 51642 3920 8.21%

Allentown 106632 119261 12629 11.84%

Bethlehem 71329 75004 3675 5.15%

Easton 26263 26996 733 2.79%

Lehigh County Boroughs 38074 37771 -303 -0.80%

Northampton County Boroughs 56475 58422 1947 3.45%

Lehigh Valley Cities 204224 221261 17037 8.34%

Lehigh Valley Boroughs 94549 96193 1644 1.74%

Lehigh County (excluding cities) 186429 217878 31449 16.87%

Northampton County (excluding cities) 188503 217213 28710 15.23%

48


# # # %

Lehigh County 312090 356756 44666 14.31%

Alburtis Borough 2117 2411 294 13.89%

Allentown City 106632 119261 12629 11.84%

Bethlehem City 19029 19597 568 2.98%

Catasauqua Borough 6588 6505 -83 -1.26%

Coopersburg Borough 2582 2309 -273 -10.57%

Coplay Borough 3387 3216 -171 -5.05%

Emmaus Borough 11313 11342 29 0.26%

Fountain Hill Borough 4614 4614 0 0.00%

Hanover Township 1913 1717 -196 -10.25%

Heidelberg Township 3279 3468 189 5.76%

Lower Macungie Township 19220 31432 12212 63.54%

Lower Milford Township 3617 3834 217 6.00%

Lowhill Township 1869 2187 318 17.01%

Lynn Township 3849 4292 443 11.51%

Macungie Borough 3039 3111 72 2.37%

North Whitehall Township 14731 16000 1269 8.61%

Salisbury Township 13498 13658 160 1.19%

Slatington Borough 4434 4263 -171 -3.86%

South Whitehall Township 18028 19541 1513 8.39%

Upper Macungie Township 13895 21988 8093 58.24%

Upper Milford Township 6889 7488 599 8.70%

Upper Saucon Township 11939 15629 3690 30.91%

Washington Township 6588 6718 130 1.97%

Weisenberg Township 4144 5036 892 21.53%

Whitehall Township 24896 27139 2243 9.01%

49


# # # %

Northampton County 267066 299616 32550 12.19%

Allen Township 2630 4518 1888 71.79%

Bangor Borough 5319 5233 -86 -1.62%

Bath Borough 2678 2680 2 0.07%

Bethlehem City 52300 55407 3107 5.94%

Bethlehem Township 21171 23836 2665 12.59%

Bushkill Township 6982 8339 1357 19.44%

Chapman Borough 234 172 -62 -26.50%

East Allen Township 4903 4869 -34 -0.69%

East Bangor Borough 979 1182 203 20.74%

Easton City 26263 26996 733 2.79 %

Forks Township 8419 15129 6710 79.70%

Freemansburg Borough 1897 2618 721 38.01%

Glendon Borough 367 424 57 15.53%

Hanover Township 9563 11255 1692 17.69%

Hellertown Borough 5606 5858 252 4.50%

Lehigh Township 9728 10448 720 7.40%

Lower Mount Bethel Township 3228 3088 -140 -4.34%

Lower Nazareth Township 5259 5827 568 10.80%

Lower Saucon Township 9884 10788 904 9.15%

Moore Township 8673 9222 549 6.33%

Nazareth Borough 6023 5701 -322 -5.35%

North Catasauqua Borough 2814 2833 19 0.68%

Northampton Borough 9405 9895 490 5.21%

Palmer Township 16809 20908 4099 24.39%

Pen Argyl Borough 3615 3557 -58 -1.60%

Plainfield Township 5668 6150 482 8.50%

Portland Borough 579 431 -148 -25.56%

Roseto Borough 1653 1675 22 1.33%

Stockertown Borough 687 1156 469 68.27%

Tatamy Borough 930 992 62 6.67%

Upper Mount Bethel Township 6063 6814 751 12.39%

Upper Nazareth Township 4426 6484 2058 46.50%

Walnutport Borough 2043 2164 121 5.92%

Washington Township 4152 5154 1002 24.13%

West Easton Borough 1152 1304 152 13.19%

Williams Township 4470 5962 1492 33.38%

Wilson Borough 7682 7838 156 2.03%

Wind Gap Borough 2812 2709 -103 -3.66%

50


# # # %

Carbon County 58802 64634 5832 9.92%

Banks Township 1359 1243 -116 -8.54%

Beaver Meadows Borough 968 644 -324 -33.47%

Bowmanstown Borough 895 1119 224 25.03%

East Penn Township 2461 2842 381 15.48%

East Side Borough 290 247 -43 -14.83%

Franklin Township 4243 4210 -33 -0.78%

Jim Thorpe Borough 4804 4712 -92 -1.92%

Kidder Township 1185 1818 633 53.42%

Lansford Borough 4230 3871 -359 -8.49%

Lausanne Township 218 285 67 30.73%

Lehigh Township 527 468 -59 -11.20%

Lehighton Borough 5537 5388 -149 -2.69%

Lower Towamensing Township 3173 3229 56 1.76%

Mahoning Township 3978 4261 283 7.11%

Nesquehoning Borough 3285 3295 10 0.30%

Packer Township 986 1056 70 7.10%

Palmerton Borough 5248 5352 104 1.98%

Parryville Borough 478 629 151 31.59%

Penn Forrest Township 5439 9693 4254 78.21%

Summit Hill Borough 2974 2981 7 0.24%

Towamensing Township 3475 4451 976 28.09%

Weatherly Borough 2612 2472 -140 -5.36%

Weissport Borough 434 368 -66 -15.21%

51


# # # %

Monroe County 138687 167881 29194 21.05%

Barrett Township 3880 4127 247 6.37%

Chestnuthill Township 14418 16874 2456 17.03%

Coolbaugh Township 15205 20387 5182 34.08%

Delaware Water Gap Borough 744 678 -66 -8.87%

East Stroudsburg Borough 9888 9967 79 0.80%

Eldred Township 2665 2915 250 9.38%

Hamilton Township 8235 8915 680 8.26%

Jackson Township 5979 6912 933 15.60%

Middle Smithfield Township 11495 15837 4342 37.77%

Mount Pocono Borough 2742 3106 364 13.27%

Paradise Township 2671 3133 462 17.30%

Pocono Township 9607 10904 1297 13.50%

Polk Township 6533 7745 1212 18.55%

Price Township 2649 3547 898 33.90%

Ross Township 5435 5842 407 7.49%

Smithfield Township 5672 7324 1652 29.13%

Stroud Township 13978 18921 4943 35.36%

Stroudsburg Borough 5756 5516 -240 -4.17%

Tobyhanna Township 6152 8484 2332 37.91%

Tunkhannock Township 4983 6747 1764 35.40%


# # # %

Pike County 46302 56632 10330 22.31%

Blooming Grove Township 3621 4742 1121 30.96%

Delaware Township 6319 7281 962 15.22%

Dingman Township 8788 11787 2999 34.13%

Greene Township 3149 3887 738 23.44%

Lackawaxen Township 4154 5041 887 21.35%

Lehman Township 7515 10513 2998 39.89%

Matamoras Borough 2312 2310 -2 -0.09%

Milford Borough 1104 1067 -37 -3.35%

Milford Township 1292 1556 264 20.43%

Palmyra Township 3145 3287 142 4.52%

Porter Township 385 419 34 8.83%

Shohola Township 2088 2447 359 17.19%

Westfall Township 2430 2295 -135 -5.56%

52


# # # %

Wayne County 47722 51642 3920 8.21%

Berlin Township 2188 2605 417 19.06%

Bethany Borough 292 227 -65 -22.26%

Buckingham Township 656 488 -168 -25.61%

Canaan Township 1916 3992 2076 108.35%

Cherry Ridge Township 1817 1789 -28 -1.54%

Clinton Township 1926 2183 257 13.34%

Damascus Township 3662 3592 -70 -1.91%

Dreher Township 1280 1431 151 11.80%

Dyberry Township 1353 1358 5 0.37%

Hawley Borough 1303 1364 61 4.68%

Honesdale Borough 4874 4315 -559 -11.47%

Lake Township 4361 5185 824 18.89%

Lebanon Township 645 684 39 6.05%

Lehigh Township 1639 1526 -113 -6.89%

Manchester Township 888 744 -144 -16.22%

Mount Pleasant Township 1345 1484 139 10.33%

Oregon Township 745 726 -19 -2.55%

Palmyra Township 1127 1150 23 2.04%

Paupack Township 2959 3742 783 26.46%

Preston Township 1107 802 -305 -27.55%

Prompton Borough 243 272 29 11.93%

Salem Township 3664 4155 491 13.40%

Scott Township 669 549 -120 -17.94%

South Canaan Township 1666 1449 -217 -13.03%

Starrucca Borough 216 223 7 3.24%

Sterling Township 1251 1530 279 22.30%

Texas Township 2501 2708 207 8.28%

Waymart Borough 1429 1369 -60 -4.20%

53

Poverty - Individuals 2000 2015 Change - # Change - %

# % # % # % # %

Lehigh County 28095 9.3 46735 13.1 18640 66.35% 3.8 40.86%

Northampton County 20404 7.9 28164 9.4 7760 38.03% 1.5 18.99%

Carbon County 5509 9.5 7045 10.9 1536 27.88% 1.4 14.74%

Monroe County 12180 9 20985 12.5 8805 72.29% 3.5 38.89%

Pike County 3178 6.9 5606 9.9 2428 76.40% 3 43.48%

Wayne County 5192 11.3 6662 12.9 1470 28.31% 1.6 14.16%

Allentown 18882 18.5 31604 26.5 12722 67.38% 8 43.24%

Bethlehem 9970 13.98 13143 17.52 3173 31.83% 3.54 25.32%

Easton 3763 16 6020 22.3 2257 59.98% 6.3 39.38%

Lehigh County Boroughs 2333 6.13 4231 11.2 1898 81.35% 5.07 82.71%

Northampton County Boroughs 3984 7.05 5573 9.54 1589 39.88% 2.49 35.32%

Lehigh Valley Cities 32615 15.97 50767 22.94 18152 55.66% 6.97 43.64%

Lehigh Valley Boroughs 6317 6.54 9804 10.19 3487 55.20% 3.65 55.81%

Lehigh County (excluding cities) 7714 4.14 12681 5.82 4967 64.39% 1.68 40.58%

Northampton County (excluding

cities) 8170 4.33 11450 5.27 3280 40.15% 0.94 21.71%

Lehigh and Northampton

counties 48499 8.37 74899 11.41 26400 54.43% 3.04 36.32%

54


# % # % # % # %

Lehigh County 28095 9.3 46735 13.1 18640 66.35% 3.8 40.86%

Alburtis Borough 72 3.4 200 8.3 128 177.78% 4.9 144.12%

Allentown City 18882 18.5 31604 26.5 12722 67.38% 8 43.24%

Bethlehem City 1499 8.2 2450 12.5 951 63.44% 4.3 52.44%

Catasauqua Borough 522 8 1145 17.6 623 119.35% 9.6 120.00%

Coopersburg Borough 70 2.9 113 4.9 43 61.43% 2 68.97%

Coplay Borough 238 7 399 12.4 161 67.65% 5.4 77.14%

Emmaus Borough 395 3.5 930 8.2 535 135.44% 4.7 134.29%

Fountain Hill Borough 384 8.9 674 14.6 290 75.52% 5.7 64.04%

Hanover Township 107 5.6 189 11 82 76.64% 5.4 96.43%

Heidelberg Township 221 6.5 35 1 -186 -84.16% -5.5 -84.62%

Lower Macungie Township 432 2.3 1069 3.4 637 147.45% 1.1 47.83%

Lower Milford Township 101 2.8 100 2.6 -1 -0.99% -0.2 -7.14%

Lowhill Township 65 3.5 92 4.2 27 41.54% 0.7 20.00%

Lynn Township 150 4.1 335 7.8 185 123.33% 3.7 90.24%

Macungie Borough 106 3.5 212 6.8 106 100.00% 3.3 94.29%

North Whitehall Township 545 3.8 768 4.8 223 40.92% 1 26.32%

Salisbury Township 353 2.7 819 6 466 132.01% 3.3 122.22%

Slatington Borough 546 12.3 558 13.1 12 2.20% 0.8 6.50%

South Whitehall Township 668 3.9 977 5 309 46.26% 1.1 28.21%

Upper Macungie Township 411 3 616 2.8 205 49.88% -0.2 -6.67%

Upper Milford Township 92 1.3 404 5.4 312 339.13% 4.1 315.38%

Upper Saucon Township 201 1.8 563 3.6 362 180.10% 1.8 100.00%

Washington Township 332 5.1 470 7 138 41.57% 1.9 37.25%

Weisenberg Township 96 2.3 317 6.3 221 230.21% 4 173.91%

Whitehall Township 1607 6.5 2198 8.1 591 36.78% 1.6 24.62%

55


# % # % # % # %


Allen Township 46 1.7 113 2.5 67 145.65% 0.8 47.06%

Bangor Borough 695 13.1 581 11.1 -114 -16.40% -2 -15.27%

Bath Borough 210 7.9 429 16 219 104.29% 8.1 102.53%

Bethlehem City 8471 17.6 10694 19.3 2223 26.24% 1.7 9.66%

Bethlehem Township 561 2.7 763 3.2 202 36.01% 0.5 18.52%

Bushkill Township 212 3.1 384 4.6 172 81.13% 1.5 48.39%

Chapman Borough 12 5.3 25 14.5 13 108.33% 9.2 173.58%

East Allen Township 132 2.7 141 2.9 9 6.82% 0.2 7.41%

East Bangor Borough 103 10.6 149 12.6 46 44.66% 2 18.87%

Easton City 3763 16 6020 22.3 2257 59.98% 6.3 39.38%

Forks Township 253 3 666 4.4 413 163.24% 1.4 46.67%

Freemansburg Borough 177 9.4 188 7.2 11 6.21% -2.2 -23.40%

Glendon Borough 57 15.4 53 12.5 -4 -7.02% -2.9 -18.83%

Hanover Township 207 2.2 619 5.5 412 199.03% 3.3 150.00%

Hellertown Borough 260 4.6 451 7.7 191 73.46% 3.1 67.39%

Lehigh Township 277 2.9 543 5.2 266 96.03% 2.3 79.31%

Lower Mount Bethel Township 187 5.8 201 6.5 14 7.49% 0.7 12.07%

Lower Nazareth Township 113 2.1 262 4.5 149 131.86% 2.4 114.29%

Lower Saucon Township 244 2.5 475 4.4 231 94.67% 1.9 76.00%

Moore Township 343 4 609 6.6 266 77.55% 2.6 65.00%

Nazareth Borough 456 8 467 8.2 11 2.41% 0.2 2.50%

North Catasauqua Borough 185 6.6 156 5.5 -29 -15.68% -1.1 -16.67%

Northampton Borough 343 3.7 920 9.3 577 168.22% 5.6 151.35%

Palmer Township 606 3.7 836 4 230 37.95% 0.3 8.11%

Pen Argyl Borough 206 5.7 349 9.8 143 69.42% 4.1 71.93%

Plainfield Township 209 3.7 363 5.9 154 73.68% 2.2 59.46%

Portland Borough 34 6 93 21.6 59 173.53% 15.6 260.00%

Roseto Borough 119 7.2 131 7.8 12 10.08% 0.6 8.33%

Stockertown Borough 44 6.4 71 6.1 27 61.36% -0.3 -4.69%

Tatamy Borough 35 3.8 15 1.5 -20 -57.14% -2.3 -60.53%

Upper Mount Bethel Township 380 6.3 279 4.1 -101 -26.58% -2.2 -34.92%

Upper Nazareth Township 63 1.7 220 3.4 157 249.21% 1.7 100.00%

Walnutport Borough 169 8.5 162 7.5 -7 -4.14% -1 -11.76%

Washington Township 234 5.8 186 3.6 -48 -20.51% -2.2 -37.93%

West Easton Borough 114 9.9 188 14.4 74 64.91% 4.5 45.45%

Williams Township 119 2.7 143 2.4 24 20.17% -0.3 -11.11%

Wilson Borough 438 5.8 886 11.3 448 102.28% 5.5 94.83%

Wind Gap Borough 327 11.9 260 9.6 -67 -20.49% -2.3 -19.33%

56


# % # % # % # %

Carbon County 5509 9.5 7045 10.9 1536 27.88% 1.4 14.74%

Banks Township 125 9.1 159 12.8 34 27.20% 3.7 40.66%

Beaver Meadows Borough 74 7.6 111 17.2 37 50.00% 9.6 126.32%

Bowmanstown Borough 82 9.2 114 10.2 32 39.02% 1 10.87%

East Penn Township 84 3.4 114 4 30 35.71% 0.6 17.65%

East Side Borough 43 15.9 33 13.5 -10 -23.26% -2.4 -15.09%

Franklin Township 184 4.3 295 7 111 60.33% 2.7 62.79%

Jim Thorpe Borough 478 10 655 13.9 177 37.03% 3.9 39.00%

Kidder Township 116 10.1 98 5.4 -18 -15.52% -4.7 -46.53%

Lansford Borough 599 14.3 805 20.8 206 34.39% 6.5 45.45%

Lausanne Township 27 11.9 77 27 50 185.19% 15.1 126.89%

Lehigh Township 56 10.8 67 14.3 11 19.64% 3.5 32.41%

Lehighton Borough 774 14.3 539 10 -235 -30.36% -4.3 -30.07%

Lower Towamensing Township 258 8.3 349 10.8 91 35.27% 2.5 30.12%

Mahoning Township 400 10.5 558 13.1 158 39.50% 2.6 24.76%

Nesquehoning Borough 305 9.7 633 19.2 328 107.54% 9.5 97.94%

Packer Township 70 7.2 35 3.3 -35 -50.00% -3.9 -54.17%

Palmerton Borough 521 10 562 10.5 41 7.87% 0.5 5.00%

Parryville Borough 29 6.2 62 9.8 33 113.79% 3.6 58.06%

Penn Forrest Township 572 10.6 1086 11.2 514 89.86% 0.6 5.66%

Summit Hill Borough 229 7.5 235 7.9 6 2.62% 0.4 5.33%

Towamensing Township 164 4.7 93 2.1 -71 -43.29% -2.6 -55.32%

Weatherly Borough 257 10.8 267 10.8 10 3.89% 0 0.00%

Weissport Borough 62 14.2 95 25.7 33 53.23% 11.5 80.99%

57


# % # % # % # %

Monroe County 12180 9 20985 12.5 8805 72.29% 3.5 38.89%

Barrett Township 363 9.4 590 14.3 227 62.53% 4.9 52.13%

Chestnuthill Township 1133 7.9 1215 7.2 82 7.24% -0.7 -8.86%

Coolbaugh Township 1786 11.8 2956 14.5 1170 65.51% 2.7 22.88%

Delaware Water Gap Borough 65 8.8 65 9.6 0 0.00% 0.8 9.09%

East Stroudsburg Borough 1168 15.2 2522 25.3 1354 115.92% 10.1 66.45%

Eldred Township 229 9 233 8 4 1.75% -1 -11.11%

Hamilton Township 503 6.4 499 5.6 -4 -0.80% -0.8 -12.50%

Jackson Township 374 6.3 726 10.5 352 94.12% 4.2 66.67%

Middle Smithfield Township 510 4.5 1409 8.9 899 176.27% 4.4 97.78%

Mount Pocono Borough 284 10.4 419 13.5 135 47.54% 3.1 29.81%

Paradise Township 300 11.3 81 2.6 -219 -73.00% -8.7 -76.99%

Pocono Township 579 6 1265 11.6 686 118.48% 5.6 93.33%

Polk Township 453 6.9 1146 14.8 693 152.98% 7.9 114.49%

Price Township 141 5.3 326 9.2 185 131.21% 3.9 73.58%

Ross Township 388 7.2 543 9.3 155 39.95% 2.1 29.17%

Smithfield Township 503 9 967 13.2 464 92.25% 4.2 46.67%

Stroud Township 996 7.1 2289 12.1 1293 129.82% 5 70.42%

Stroudsburg Borough 1094 19.3 1914 34.7 820 74.95% 15.4 79.79%

Tobyhanna Township 644 10.5 1171 13.8 527 81.83% 3.3 31.43%

Tunkhannock Township 667 13.5 837 12.4 170 25.49% -1.1 -8.15%


# % # % # % # %

Pike County 3178 6.9 5606 9.9 2428 76.40% 3 43.48%

Blooming Grove Township 295 8.6 370 7.8 75 25.42% -0.8 -9.30%

Delaware Township 415 6.6 968 13.3 553 133.25% 6.7 101.52%

Dingman Township 373 4.2 495 4.2 122 32.71% 0 0.00%

Greene Township 273 8.7 408 10.5 135 49.45% 1.8 20.69%

Lackawaxen Township 401 9.7 308 6.1 -93 -23.19% -3.6 -37.11%

Lehman Township 586 7.9 1672 15.9 1086 185.32% 8 101.27%

Matamoras Borough 91 4 275 11.9 184 202.20% 7.9 197.50%

Milford Borough 100 9.1 94 8.8 -6 -6.00% -0.3 -3.30%

Milford Township 67 5.2 112 7.2 45 67.16% 2 38.46%

Palmyra Township 274 8.8 270 8.2 -4 -1.46% -0.6 -6.82%

Porter Township 12 3.2 52 12.4 40 333.33% 9.2 287.50%

Shohola Township 129 6.2 392 16 263 203.88% 9.8 158.06%

Westfall Township 162 6.9 181 7.9 19 11.73% 1 14.49%

58


# % # % # % # %

Wayne County 5192 11.3 6662 12.9 1470 28.31% 1.6 14.16%

Berlin Township 246 11.3 195 7.5 -51 -20.73% -3.8 -33.63%

Bethany Borough 20 6.8 26 11.5 6 30.00% 4.7 69.12%

Buckingham Township 61 9.5 50 10.2 -11 -18.03% 0.7 7.37%

Canaan Township 25 3.1 483 12.1 458 1832.00% 9 290.32%

Cherry Ridge Township 164 9 179 10 15 9.15% 1 11.11%

Clinton Township 181 9.6 109 5 -72 -39.78% -4.6 -47.92%

Damascus Township 401 11 187 5.2 -214 -53.37% -5.8 -52.73%

Dreher Township 152 12.2 190 13.3 38 25.00% 1.1 9.02%

Dyberry Township 98 7.7 193 14.2 95 96.94% 6.5 84.42%

Hawley Borough 269 20.7 315 23.1 46 17.10% 2.4 11.59%

Honesdale Borough 705 14.7 1381 32 676 95.89% 17.3 117.69%

Lake Township 444 10.5 306 5.9 -138 -31.08% -4.6 -43.81%

Lebanon Township 86 12.7 80 11.7 -6 -6.98% -1 -7.87%

Lehigh Township 174 10.7 177 11.6 3 1.72% 0.9 8.41%

Manchester Township 109 12.1 96 12.9 -13 -11.93% 0.8 6.61%

Mount Pleasant Township 100 7.2 255 17.2 155 155.00% 10 138.89%

Oregon Township 78 10.7 66 9.1 -12 -15.38% -1.6 -14.95%


Paupack Township 275 9.3 453 12.1 178 64.73% 2.8 30.11%

Preston Township 100 9.2 87 10.9 -13 -13.00% 1.7 18.48%

Prompton Borough 29 10.8 39 14.2 10 34.48% 3.4 31.48%

Salem Township 447 12.3 519 12.5 72 16.11% 0.2 1.63%

Scott Township 89 13.7 62 11.3 -27 -30.34% -2.4 -17.52%

South Canaan Township 205 12.6 162 11.2 -43 -20.98% -1.4 -11.11%

Starrucca Borough 39 18.4 59 26.3 20 51.28% 7.9 42.93%

Sterling Township 99 8 150 9.8 51 51.52% 1.8 22.50%

Texas Township 307 13 452 16.7 145 47.23% 3.7 28.46%

Waymart Borough 164 12.3 300 21.9 136 82.93% 9.6 78.05%

59

Poverty-Families 2000 2015 Change - # Change - %

# % # % # % # %

Lehigh County 5458 6.6 8717 9.7 3259 59.71% 3.1 46.97%


Carbon County 1119 6.8 1244 7.2 125 11.17% 0.4 5.88%

Monroe County 2253 6.2 3924 9.4 1671 74.17% 3.2 51.61%

Pike County 668 5.1 1080 7.1 412 61.68% 2 39.22%

Wayne County 1087 8.4 1047 7.9 -40 -3.68% -0.5 -5.95%

Allentown 3695 14.6 5929 22.4 2234 60.46% 7.8 53.42%

Bethlehem 1913 11.1 2194 13.15 281 14.69% 2.05 18.47%

Easton 707 12.3 1008 17.6 301 42.57% 5.3 43.09%

Lehigh County Boroughs 468 4.6 798 8.3 330 70.51% 3.7 80.43%

Northampton County Boroughs 761 5 1199 7.88 438 57.56% 2.88 57.60%

Lehigh Valley Cities 6315 13.1 9131 18.68 2816 44.59% 5.58 42.60%

Lehigh Valley Boroughs 1229 4.8 1997 8.05 768 62.49% 3.25 67.71%

Lehigh County (excluding cities) 1525 2.9 2406 4.09 881 57.77% 1.19 41.03%

Northampton County (excluding

cities) 1677 3.1 2515 4.15 838 49.97% 1.05 33.87%

60


# % # % # % # %

Lehigh County 5458 6.6 8717 9.7 3259 59.71% 3.1 46.97%

Alburtis Borough 16 2.8 49 7.4 33 206.25% 4.6 164.29%

Allentown City 3695 14.6 5929 22.4 2234 60.46% 7.8 53.42%

Bethlehem City 238 4.9 383 8.3 145 60.92% 3.4 69.39%

Catasauqua Borough 93 5.4 200 12.1 107 115.05% 6.7 124.07%

Coopersburg Borough 19 2.8 12 2.2 -7 -36.84% -0.6 -21.43%

Coplay Borough 52 5.6 80 8.7 28 53.85% 3.1 55.36%

Emmaus Borough 67 2.2 158 5.4 91 135.82% 3.2 145.45%

Fountain Hill Borough 83 7.5 135 12.5 52 62.65% 5 66.67%

Hanover Township 20 4 46 10.3 26 130.00% 6.3 157.50%

Heidelberg Township 69 7 0 0 -69 -100.00% -7 -100.00%

Lower Macungie Township 72 1.3 201 2.3 129 179.17% 1 76.92%

Lower Milford Township 22 2.1 20 1.8 -2 -9.09% -0.3 -14.29%

Lowhill Township 13 2.3 28 4.4 15 115.38% 2.1 91.30%

Lynn Township 22 2.1 45 4 23 104.55% 1.9 90.48%


North Whitehall Township 111 2.7 193 4.1 82 73.87% 1.4 51.85%

Salisbury Township 68 1.7 160 4.1 92 135.29% 2.4 141.18%

Slatington Borough 124 10.6 101 9.7 -23 -18.55% -0.9 -8.49%

South Whitehall Township 153 3.1 186 3.5 33 21.57% 0.4 12.90%

Upper Macungie Township 76 2 92 1.6 16 21.05% -0.4 -20.00%

Upper Milford Township 10 0.5 100 4.5 90 900.00% 4 800.00%

Upper Saucon Township 29 0.9 76 1.9 47 162.07% 1 111.11%


Weisenberg Township 22 1.8 25 1.8 3 13.64% 0 0.00%


61


# % # % # % # %


Allen Township 9 1.1 23 1.7 14 155.56% 0.6 54.55%

Bangor Borough 125 8.5 163 11.6 38 30.40% 3.1 36.47%

Bath Borough 45 6.4 77 11.4 32 71.11% 5 78.13%

Bethlehem City 1675 13.5 1811 15 136 8.12% 1.5 11.11%



Chapman Borough 2 3.1 7 13.5 5 250.00% 10.4 335.48%


East Bangor Borough 19 7.3 29 9.2 10 52.63% 1.9 26.03%

Easton City 707 12.3 1008 17.6 301 42.57% 5.3 43.09%

Forks Township 66 2.7 151 3.4 85 128.79% 0.7 25.93%

Freemansburg Borough 34 6.7 16 2.3 -18 -52.94% -4.4 -65.67%

Glendon Borough 13 12.9 15 12.2 2 15.38% -0.7 -5.43%

Hanover Township 56 2 116 3.7 60 107.14% 1.7 85.00%


Lehigh Township 65 2.3 100 3.1 35 53.85% 0.8 34.78%

Lower Mount Bethel

Township 43 4.8 42 5 -1 -2.33% 0.2 4.17%


Lower Saucon Township 57 2 86 2.8 29 50.88% 0.8 40.00%

Moore Township 91 3.5 66 2.5 -25 -27.47% -1 -28.57%

Nazareth Borough 64 4.2 30 2.2 -34 -53.13% -2 -47.62%

North Catasauqua Borough 41 5.2 43 5.2 2 4.88% 0 0.00%


Palmer Township 126 2.6 175 2.9 49 38.89% 0.3 11.54%



Portland Borough 6 4.1 31 26.1 25 416.67% 22 536.59%

Roseto Borough 28 5.7 27 5.9 -1 -3.57% 0.2 3.51%

Stockertown Borough 10 5.1 16 5 6 60.00% -0.1 -1.96%

Tatamy Borough 8 2.9 0 0 -8 -100.00% -2.9 -100.00%

Upper Mount Bethel

Township 80 4.6 56 2.9 -24 -30.00% -1.7 -36.96%

Upper Nazareth Township 7 0.7 26 1.6 19 271.43% 0.9 128.57%

Walnutport Borough 52 8.8 35 6 -17 -32.69% -2.8 -31.82%

Washington Township 40 3.3 46 3.1 6 15.00% -0.2 -6.06%


Williams Township 22 1.7 28 1.6 6 27.27% -0.1 -5.88%

Wilson Borough 88 4.5 286 14.2 198 225.00% 9.7 215.56%

Wind Gap Borough 54 7.2 44 6.9 -10 -18.52% -0.3 -4.17%

62


# % # % # % # %

Carbon County 1119 6.8 1244 7.2 125 11.17% 0.4 5.88%

Banks Township 30 7.6 22 6.5 -8 -26.67% -1.1 -14.47%

Beaver Meadows Borough 11 4.4 20 10.9 9 81.82% 6.5 147.73%

Bowmanstown Borough 19 7.4 25 7.8 6 31.58% 0.4 5.41%

East Penn Township 7 1 14 1.8 7 100.00% 0.8 80.00%

East Side Borough 8 12.1 7 13 -1 -12.50% 0.9 7.44%

Franklin Township 33 2.6 49 4 16 48.48% 1.4 53.85%

Jim Thorpe Borough 105 7.8 75 5.8 -30 -28.57% -2 -25.64%

Kidder Township 35 9.5 13 2.3 -22 -62.86% -7.2 -75.79%

Lansford Borough 122 10.9 175 19.5 53 43.44% 8.6 78.90%

Lausanne Township 4 6.2 15 21.4 11 275.00% 15.2 245.16%

Lehigh Township 12 8 11 8.1 -1 -8.33% 0.1 1.25%

Lehighton Borough 165 10.8 87 6.4 -78 -47.27% -4.4 -40.74%


Mahoning Township 99 8.6 108 9 9 9.09% 0.4 4.65%

Nesquehoning Borough 16 2 132 17.8 116 725.00% 15.8 790.00%

Packer Township 9 3.3 11 3.5 2 22.22% 0.2 6.06%

Palmerton Borough 122 8.5 67 5.4 -55 -45.08% -3.1 -36.47%


Penn Forrest Township 109 7 191 7.1 82 75.23% 0.1 1.43%

Summit Hill Borough 36 4 58 7.3 22 61.11% 3.3 82.50%


Weatherly Borough 60 8.7 42 7.2 -18 -30.00% -1.5 -17.24%

Weissport Borough 12 11 19 21.1 7 58.33% 10.1 91.82%

63


# % # % # % # %

Monroe County 2253 6.2 3924 9.4 1671 74.17% 3.2 51.61%


Chestnuthill Township 230 5.9 183 4.3 -47 -20.43% -1.6 -27.12%

Coolbaugh Township 343 8.4 498 10.1 155 45.19% 1.7 20.24%

Delaware Water Gap Borough 16 8.1 20 13.1 4 25.00% 5 61.73%


Eldred Township 51 7.1 35 4.2 -16 -31.37% -2.9 -40.85%

Hamilton Township 113 5.1 52 2.4 -61 -53.98% -2.7 -52.94%

Jackson Township 68 4.2 172 9.1 104 152.94% 4.9 116.67%


Mount Pocono Borough 55 7.6 104 13.2 49 89.09% 5.6 73.68%

Paradise Township 35 4.9 7 0.9 -28 -80.00% -4 -81.63%

Pocono Township 110 4.1 307 10.7 197 179.09% 6.6 160.98%

Polk Township 96 5.3 262 13.4 166 172.92% 8.1 152.83%

Price Township 22 3.1 51 5.3 29 131.82% 2.2 70.97%

Ross Township 77 5 106 6.5 29 37.66% 1.5 30.00%

Smithfield Township 5.2 170 9.8 90 112.50% 4.6 88.46%

Stroud Township 228 5.9 527 10.5 299 131.14% 4.6 77.97%


Tobyhanna Township 140 8.1 307 13.2 167 119.29% 5.1 62.96%

Tunkhannock Township 138 10.3 191 12.3 53 38.41% 2 19.42%


# % # % # % # %

Pike County 668 5.1 1080 7.1 412 61.68% 2 39.22%

Blooming Grove Township 70 6.4 46 3.5 -24 -34.29% -2.9 -45.31%


Dingman Township 99 4.1 77 2.6 -22 -22.22% -1.5 -36.59%

Greene Township 47 5 85 7.3 38 80.85% 2.3 46.00%

Lackawaxen Township 89 7.4 51 3.4 -38 -42.70% -4 -54.05%

Lehman Township 115 5.6 327 12.5 212 184.35% 6.9 123.21%

Matamoras Borough 16 2.4 52 9 36 225.00% 6.6 275.00%

Milford Borough 11 4 3 1.2 -8 -72.73% -2.8 -70.00%

Milford Township 15 4.1 14 3.8 -1 -6.67% -0.3 -7.32%

Palmyra Township 56 6 71 6.7 15 26.79% 0.7 11.67%

Porter Township 2 1.8 16 9.3 14 700.00% 7.5 416.67%

Shohola Township 24 4.2 67 10.7 43 179.17% 6.5 154.76%

Westfall Township 33 4.9 44 7 11 33.33% 2.1 42.86%

64


# % # % # % # %

Wayne County 1087 8.4 1047 7.9 -40 -3.68% -0.5 -5.95%

Berlin Township 54 8.8 24 3.5 -30 -55.56% -5.3 -60.23%

Bethany Borough 3 3.2 5 8.3 2 66.67% 5.1 159.38%

Buckingham Township 12 6.5 9 6.7 -3 -25.00% 0.2 3.08%

Canaan Township 5 2.1 17 6.9 12 240.00% 4.8 228.57%

Cherry Ridge Township 32 6.1 39 7.6 7 21.88% 1.5 24.59%

Clinton Township 32 6 5 0.8 -27 -84.38% -5.2 -86.67%

Damascus Township 97 9.4 52 4.7 -45 -46.39% -4.7 -50.00%

Dreher Township 31 9.7 19 5.2 -12 -38.71% -4.5 -46.39%

Dyberry Township 14 4 31 9.2 17 121.43% 5.2 130.00%

Hawley Borough 63 18.9 62 19.6 -1 -1.59% 0.7 3.70%

Honesdale Borough 121 9.8 221 22.5 100 82.64% 12.7 129.59%

Lake Township 108 8.7 35 2.4 -73 -67.59% -6.3 -72.41%

Lebanon Township 18 9.5 15 7.8 -3 -16.67% -1.7 -17.89%

Lehigh Township 30 6.7 38 7.9 8 26.67% 1.2 17.91%

Manchester Township 27 10.3 21 9.1 -6 -22.22% -1.2 -11.65%

Mount Pleasant Township 14 3.7 64 15.6 50 357.14% 11.9 321.62%

Oregon Township 16 7.6 11 5.4 -5 -31.25% -2.2 -28.95%



Preston Township 19 5.8 12 5.3 -7 -36.84% -0.5 -8.62%

Prompton Borough 10 12.2 6 9.2 -4 -40.00% -3 -24.59%

Salem Township 96 9.3 63 5.6 -33 -34.38% -3.7 -39.78%

Scott Township 19 11 15 9.7 -4 -21.05% -1.3 -11.82%

South Canaan Township 50 10.6 20 5.3 -30 -60.00% -5.3 -50.00%

Starrucca Borough 9 12 2 4.9 -7 -77.78% -7.1 -59.17%

Sterling Township 31 8 34 7.9 3 9.68% -0.1 -1.25%

Texas Township 65 9.7 60 9.3 -5 -7.69% -0.4 -4.12%

Waymart Borough 28 8.1 57 17.7 29 103.57% 9.6 118.52%

65

SNAP Participation

(Households) 2010 2015 Change - # Change - %

# % # % # % # %

Lehigh County 11896 9 17061 12.7 5165 43.42% 3.7 41.11%

Northampton County 7085 6.3 11591 10.3 4506 63.60% 4 63.49%

Carbon County 2096 8 2585 10 489 23.33% 2 25.00%

Monroe County 4890 8.2 7131 12.4 2241 45.83% 4.2 51.22%

Pike County 1440 6.5 1934 9.2 494 34.31% 2.7 41.54%

Wayne County 1838 9.3 2233 11.6 395 21.49% 2.3 24.73%

Allentown 8758 20 11391 27.6 2633 30.06% 7.6 38.00%

Bethlehem 3533 11.97 5273 18.09 1740 49.25% 6.12 51.13%

Easton 1643 17.8 2205 23.3 562 34.21% 5.5 30.90%

Lehigh County Boroughs 1940 12.06 1940 #DIV/0! 12.06 #DIV/0!

Northampton County

Boroughs 2710 11.55 2710 #DIV/0! 11.55 #DIV/0!

Lehigh Valley Cities 18869 23.64 18869 #DIV/0! 23.64 #DIV/0!

Lehigh Valley Boroughs 4650 11.76 4650 #DIV/0! 11.76 #DIV/0!

Lehigh County (excluding

cities) 4649 5.52 4649 #DIV/0! 5.52 #DIV/0!

Northampton County

(excluding cities) 5134 6.2 5134 #DIV/0! 6.2 #DIV/0!

66

SNAP Participation


# % # % # % # %

Lehigh County 11896 9 17061 12.7 5165 43.42% 3.7 41.11%

Alburtis Borough 22 2.7 35 4 13 59.09% 1.3 48.15%

Allentown City 8758 20 11391 27.6 2633 30.06% 7.6 38.00%

Bethlehem City 469 5.6 1021 12.1 552 117.70% 6.5 116.07%

Catasauqua Borough 187 7.3 542 20.4 355 189.84% 13.1 179.45%

Coopersburg Borough 25 2.6 69 7.6 44 176.00% 5 192.31%

Coplay Borough 93 6.7 151 10.4 58 62.37% 3.7 55.22%

Emmaus Borough 225 4.8 415 8.2 190 84.44% 3.4 70.83%

Fountain Hill Borough 223 11.5 312 15.3 89 39.91% 3.8 33.04%


Heidelberg Township 35 2.4 41 3.1 6 17.14% 0.7 29.17%

Lower Macungie Township 169 1.5 219 1.8 50 29.59% 0.3 20.00%

Lower Milford Township 0 0 22 1.6 22 N/A 1.6 N/A

Lowhill Township 10 1.2 17 2.2 7 70.00% 1 83.33%

Lynn Township 0 0 134 8.4 134 N/A 8.4 N/A


North Whitehall Township 142 2.4 264 4.5 122 85.92% 2.1 87.50%

Salisbury Township 152 2.8 212 4.1 60 39.47% 1.3 46.43%

Slatington Borough 272 15.7 302 17.4 30 11.03% 1.7 10.83%

South Whitehall Township 127 1.7 345 4.5 218 171.65% 2.8 164.71%

Upper Macungie Township 130 1.9 230 2.8 100 76.92% 0.9 47.37%

Upper Milford Township 15 0.6 76 2.7 61 406.67% 2.1 350.00%

Upper Saucon Township 37 0.8 153 3 116 313.51% 2.2 275.00%


Weisenberg Township 0 0 33 1.8 33 N/A 1.8 N/A


67

SNAP Participation


# % # % # % # %

Northampton County 7085 6.3 11591 10.3 4506 63.60% 4 63.49%

Allen Township 7 0.4 102 5.8 95 1357.14% 5.4 1350.00%

Bangor Borough 162 7.8 333 17.3 171 105.56% 9.5 121.79%

Bath Borough 108 10.1 226 22.2 118 109.26% 12.1 119.80%

Bethlehem City 3064 14.5 4252 20.6 1188 38.77% 6.1 42.07%



Chapman Borough 4 4.5 8 10.3 4 100.00% 5.8 128.89%


East Bangor Borough 41 9.3 54 13.5 13 31.71% 4.2 45.16%

Easton City 1643 17.8 2205 23.3 562 34.21% 5.5 30.90%

Forks Township 42 0.8 158 2.8 116 276.19% 2 250.00%

Freemansburg Borough 83 10.4 148 15.5 65 78.31% 5.1 49.04%

Glendon Borough 20 14.4 15 10.1 -5 -25.00% -4.3 -29.86%



Lehigh Township 45 1.1 272 6.6 227 504.44% 5.5 500.00%

Lower Mount Bethel

Township 8 0.6 41 3.3 33 412.50% 2.7 450.00%


Lower Saucon Township 51 1.3 132 3.1 81 158.82% 1.8 138.46%

Moore Township 52 1.5 236 6.7 184 353.85% 5.2 346.67%

Nazareth Borough 120 4.9 219 8.7 99 82.50% 3.8 77.55%

North Catasauqua Borough 50 3.9 100 8.4 50 100.00% 4.5 115.38%


Palmer Township 165 2.1 581 7.1 416 252.12% 5 238.10%



Portland Borough 16 8.1 29 14.9 13 81.25% 6.8 83.95%

Roseto Borough 25 3.8 46 6.9 21 84.00% 3.1 81.58%

Stockertown Borough 15 4.5 11 2.7 -4 -26.67% -1.8 -40.00%

Tatamy Borough 17 4.1 8 2.3 -9 -52.94% -1.8 -43.90%

Upper Mount Bethel

Township 38 1.5 72 2.8 34 89.47% 1.3 86.67%

Upper Nazareth Township 59 3.2 18 0.9 -41 -69.49% -2.3 -71.88%

Walnutport Borough 68 8.1 26 3.1 -42 -61.76% -5 -61.73%

Washington Township 75 4 148 8.1 73 97.33% 4.1 102.50%


Williams Township 40 1.8 13 0.6 -27 -67.50% -1.2 -66.67%

Wilson Borough 264 8 468 14.7 204 77.27% 6.7 83.75%

Wind Gap Borough 41 3.3 87 7.2 46 112.20% 3.9 118.18%

68

SNAP Participation


# % # % # % # %

Carbon County 2096 8 2585 10 489 23.33% 2 25.00%

Banks Township 37 6.7 66 12.2 29 78.38% 5.5 82.09%

Beaver Meadows Borough 42 11.8 41 13.4 -1 -2.38% 1.6 13.56%

Bowmanstown Borough 0 0 55 11.9 55 N/A 11.9 N/A

East Penn Township 53 4.8 61 5.2 8 15.09% 0.4 8.33%

East Side Borough 42 24.9 18 15.4 -24 -57.14% -9.5 -38.15%

Franklin Township 61 3.7 60 3.7 -1 -1.64% 0 0.00%

Jim Thorpe Borough 154 7.9 164 9.1 10 6.49% 1.2 15.19%

Kidder Township 71 10.8 18 2.3 -53 -74.65% -8.5 -78.70%

Lansford Borough 366 20 420 25.7 54 14.75% 5.7 28.50%

Lausanne Township 10 9 13 15.5 3 30.00% 6.5 72.22%

Lehigh Township 12 5.8 34 14.7 22 183.33% 8.9 153.45%

Lehighton Borough 336 14 209 9.3 -127 -37.80% -4.7 -33.57%


Mahoning Township 77 4.6 109 6.6 32 41.56% 2 43.48%

Nesquehoning Borough 152 10.9 269 19.6 117 76.97% 8.7 79.82%

Packer Township 3 0.8 14 3.3 11 366.67% 2.5 312.50%

Palmerton Borough 166 7.2 272 12.3 106 63.86% 5.1 70.83%


Penn Forrest Township 165 5.1 372 10.3 207 125.45% 5.2 101.96%

Summit Hill Borough 132 10.1 84 7.2 -48 -36.36% -2.9 -28.71%


Weatherly Borough 71 7.6 56 5.8 -15 -21.13% -1.8 -23.68%

Weissport Borough 38 18.5 68 41.5 30 78.95% 23 124.32%

69

SNAP Participation


# % # % # % # %

Monroe County 4890 8.2 7131 12.4 2241 45.83% 4.2 51.22%


Chestnuthill Township 354 5.9 499 8.7 145 40.96% 2.8 47.46%

Coolbaugh Township 780 11.5 1244 20 464 59.49% 8.5 73.91%

Delaware Water Gap Borough 29 9 37 11.9 8 27.59% 2.9 32.22%


Eldred Township 43 3.7 86 8.6 43 100.00% 4.9 132.43%

Hamilton Township 220 6.8 226 7.6 6 2.73% 0.8 11.76%

Jackson Township 161 6.4 139 5.7 -22 -13.66% -0.7 -10.94%


Mount Pocono Borough 153 12.4 142 12.2 -11 -7.19% -0.2 -1.61%

Paradise Township 30 2.4 97 9.2 67 223.33% 6.8 283.33%

Pocono Township 235 5.4 456 11.9 221 94.04% 6.5 120.37%

Polk Township 141 5 201 6.9 60 42.55% 1.9 38.00%

Price Township 90 7 97 7.6 7 7.78% 0.6 8.57%

Ross Township 41 1.9 165 8.7 124 302.44% 6.8 357.89%

Smithfield Township 473 18.5 367 15.8 -106 -22.41% -2.7 -14.59%

Stroud Township 283 4.1 523 8.2 240 84.81% 4.1 100.00%


Tobyhanna Township 361 18.8 485 15.2 124 34.35% -3.6 -19.15%

Tunkhannock Township 487 21.1 308 16.1 -179 -36.76% -5 -23.70%

SNAP Participation


# % # % # % # %

Pike County 1440 6.5 1934 9.2 494 34.31% 2.7 41.54%

Blooming Grove Township 146 7.9 116 6.3 -30 -20.55% -1.6 -20.25%


Dingman Township 125 3 304 7.9 179 143.20% 4.9 163.33%

Greene Township 207 13.8 118 7.6 -89 -43.00% -6.2 -44.93%

Lackawaxen Township 80 3.7 116 5.8 36 45.00% 2.1 56.76%

Lehman Township 447 11.7 566 15.8 119 26.62% 4.1 35.04%

Matamoras Borough 70 7.6 88 9.7 18 25.71% 2.1 27.63%

Milford Borough 40 8 30 5.9 -10 -25.00% -2.1 -26.25%

Milford Township 17 2.3 39 6.5 22 129.41% 4.2 182.61%

Palmyra Township 76 5.2 112 7.5 36 47.37% 2.3 44.23%

Porter Township 9 7.2 0 0 -9 -100.00% -7.2 -100.00%

Shohola Township 43 3.9 116 11.2 73 169.77% 7.3 187.18%

Westfall Township 75 7.4 64 6.7 -11 -14.67% -0.7 -9.46%

70

SNAP Participation


# % # % # % # %

Wayne County 1838 9.3 2233 11.6 395 21.49% 2.3 24.73%

Berlin Township 31 3.2 101 10.7 70 225.81% 7.5 234.38%

Bethany Borough 9 5.1 6 6.1 -3 -33.33% 1 19.61%

Buckingham Township 17 6.8 17 6.7 0 0.00% -0.1 -1.47%

Canaan Township 15 3.9 32 9.4 17 113.33% 5.5 141.03%

Cherry Ridge Township 67 5.9 109 14.4 42 62.69% 8.5 144.07%

Clinton Township 30 14.4 100 11.2 70 233.33% -3.2 -22.22%

Damascus Township 103 7 73 4.8 -30 -29.13% -2.2 -31.43%

Dreher Township 27 6.1 78 14.9 51 188.89% 8.8 144.26%

Dyberry Township 36 6.1 41 8 5 13.89% 1.9 31.15%

Hawley Borough 98 20.1 136 25 38 38.78% 4.9 24.38%

Honesdale Borough 463 21.1 429 22.3 -34 -7.34% 1.2 5.69%

Lake Township 209 10.8 69 3.7 -140 -66.99% -7.1 -65.74%

Lebanon Township 11 3.9 9 3.6 -2 -18.18% -0.3 -7.69%

Lehigh Township 102 14.4 80 11.7 -22 -21.57% -2.7 -18.75%

Manchester Township 36 10.2 34 10.9 -2 -5.56% 0.7 6.86%

Mount Pleasant Township 6 1.1 50 8.7 44 733.33% 7.6 690.91%

Oregon Township 24 8.9 32 11.1 8 33.33% 2.2 24.72%



Preston Township 26 7.6 17 4.6 -9 -34.62% -3 -39.47%

Prompton Borough 2 2.3 7 7.1 5 250.00% 4.8 208.70%

Salem Township 54 3.3 263 15.5 209 387.04% 12.2 369.70%

Scott Township 42 20.4 33 15.2 -9 -21.43% -5.2 -25.49%

South Canaan Township 29 5.4 37 7.6 8 27.59% 2.2 40.74%

Starrucca Borough 0 0 12 17.9 12 N/A 17.9 N/A

Sterling Township 27 6.2 28 4.9 1 3.70% -1.3 -20.97%

Texas Township 236 25.1 147 15.5 -89 -37.71% -9.6 -38.25%

Waymart Borough 35 7.5 113 25.3 78 222.86% 17.8 237.33%

Appendix B Data is from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Appendix C: Feeding America Map the Meal Gap Data

71

Lehigh Northampton Carbon Monroe Pike Wayne

2015 (2017 Map the Meal Gap)

Food Insecurity Rate 9.5 9.6 10.8 10.8 9.4 11.2

Estimated Food Insecure Individuals 33750 28800 7000 18200 5320 5800

Child Food Insecurity Rate 16 14.9 18.9 15.7 16.4 18.8

Estimated Food Insecure Children 13130 9340 2450 5750 1900 1750


Food Insecurity Rate 10.7 10.5 11.6 11.7 10.2 11.7


Child Food Insecurity Rate 17.4 16.3 20.9 17.3 18 20.5



Food Insecurity Rate 11.8 11.4 12.9 12.4 11.4 12


Child Food Insecurity Rate 20.6 18.5 22.9 19.1 19.8 21.6


Appendix D: Foods to Encourage

Feeding America’s Foods to Encourage Background Despite numerous evaluation attempts from manufactures, retailers and even nutrition experts, there has yet to be agreement on a consistent measure or definition for “nutritious.” As a result, in 2012 Feeding America convened an advisory board of external nutrition and health experts, as well as a network nutrition task force to explore the meaning of “nutritious” and related dietary needs of communities within the specific purview of food banking. One of the deliverables, the Detailed Foods to Encourage (F2E) framework, was designed to more accurately evaluate and describe the nutritional contributions of the food categories in network food banks’ inventories. This Detailed F2E framework serves as the Feeding America national office recommendation, not requirement, for network food banks. This is, in part, due to a lack of consistent inventory systems that allow for the tracking of foods at the specified level outlined in the Detailed F2E. However, food banks that have their own capacity of detailed tracking now have national recommendation guidelines to follow and compare against.

At the national level, Feeding America only tracks food banks’ inventory through a simplified framework of three broad categories, Foods to Encourage (F2E), Other Foods and Non Food. F2E is Feeding America’s approach to estimate the nutritional contributions of food categories in food banks’ inventories. The product categories within F2E are ones that are more consistently inclusive of food items that meet the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). For example, fruits, vegetables, protein, dairy and whole grains. Many also understand this to be a reflection of the USDA MyPlate image. The F2E broad category consists of 13 product categories, including: • Cereal, • Dairy (30%), • Fruits, • Juice, • Meat/Fish/Poultry, • Non-Meat Protein, • Pasta, • Fresh Produce, • Rice, • Vegetables, • Beverages (10% to reflect plain water), • Mix (60%), and • Salvage (39%)

72

Through many discussions, it was determined that for some product categories (where possible) Feeding America needed to drill down further, so that, for example, butter and sour cream are not in the same classification as milk or yogurt. Feeding America considers only percentages of certain product categories (i.e., 10% beverages, 30% dairy, etc.) to be actual F2Es because after a national review of detailed receipt donations not all food products in particular categories met the nutritional criteria. Feeding America applies these percentages across all food bank inventories.

Feeding America understands that at times healthful foods will be unaccounted for in the broad Other Food category, but within the current system constraints the identified

F2Es are product categories we feel we can confidently capture and classify as meeting Feeding America’s nutritional criteria. Product categories such as Meals/Soups/Entrée located in the Other Food broad category of the Feeding America inventory system, were found to be too diverse in their nutritional quality and lacked consistency so much so that Feeding America chose to not include them as part of the F2E listing. Until

Feeding America and network members have a streamlined inventory system that can account for product on a more granule level, the current framework has proven to be a significant step in the right direction for tracking and goal-setting related to increasing access to more healthful foods.

Both the Detailed Foods to Encourage and broad category of Foods to Encourage are

intended to send a positive message, focusing on specific food groups that are more widely accepted as contributing positively to good health – and align with USDA MyPlate.

73

Broad Categories of Feeding America’s Inventory System Feeding America has 31 product categories that are tracked in the Quarterly Poundage Report (QPR) completed by all network food banks. Using data from the “Receipts by Category” in the QPR, the 31 product categories are divided into 3 broad categories: Foods to Encourage, Other Food and Non Food.

Foods to Encourage (F2E) Percentage Calculation To calculate the % of F2E received through a particular food bank’s food inventory, Feeding America uses 31 product categories (that are reported in the Quarterly Poundage Report under “Receipts by Category”). The calculation for determining the percentage of F2E is outlined below.

Add up the product categories of the food bank’s inventory deemed F2E: (Cereal + Fruits + Juices + Meat/Fish/Poultry + Non-meat protein + Pasta + Produce + Rice + Vegetables + 10% of Beverage + 30% of Dairy + 60% of Mix + 39% of Salvage) = X Divide the sum (X) of the above F2E product categories by the total number of F2E product categories calculated above (e.g., 0 thru 13 = Y) and Other Food product categories (e.g., 0 thru 16 = Z) utilized by the food bank. Exclude the Non Food category from the denominator. % F2E of food bank’s food inventory = X / (Y+Z)

74

Foods to Encourage

• Beverages (10% to

reflect plain

water)*

• Cereal

• Dairy (30%)*

• Fruits

• Juice

• Meat/Fish/Poultry Mix

(60%)*

• Non-Meat Protein

• Pasta

• Fresh Produce • Rice

• Vegetables

• Salvage (39%)*

Other Food • Beverage (90%)*

• Bread/Bakery

• Baby Food

• Condiments • Dairy (70%)*

• Desserts

• Dough

• Dressings • Grains

• Meals/Soups/Entrees Mix

(40%)*

• Non-Dairy Dairy

• Nutritional Aid/Supplement

• Prepared Foods

• Snack • Salvage (61%)*

Non Food • Cleaning

• Health and Beauty

• Household Paper

• Nonfood • Personal Paper

• Pet

*Feeding America allows only certain percentages of some product categories (e.g., 10%

beverage, 30% dairy, etc.) to be categorized under the F2E broad category because after a

national review of detailed receipt donations not all foods in particular product categories met

the nutritional criteria. The remaining percentage for those said product categories (i.e., non-

F2E products) is categorized under Other Food.

75

Foods must meet all criteria below to qualify. Criteria is based on per serving basis.

Detailed Foods To Encourage The Detailed Foods to Encourage (F2E) framework was designed to more

accurately evaluate and describe the nutritional contributions of the food

categories in food banks’ inventories. This framework below serves as the

Feeding America national office recommendation, not requirement, for network

food banks. Below are the qualifications required for the product categories to be

listed within our Foods to Encourage.

Grains • 100% whole grain (Rolled Oats, Barley,

Wild Rice)

• Bread & Pasta with “whole grain” listed

as the first ingredientv & with:

• >10% DVvi or ≥2.5g fiber

• Cereal with “whole grain” listed as the

first ingredientvii & >3g of dietary fiber

• Bread, Pasta & Cereal that meet the

criteria below:

• Sodium: ≤230mg

• Total Sugar: Bread/Pasta ≤ 0gvii i

Cereal ≤ 12gix

• Sat Fat: ≤ 2g

• Trans Fat: 0g

Fruits and Vegetables • Fresh with nothing added

• 100% Fruit or Vegetable Juice

• Canned, Dried or Frozen with no

partially hydrogenated oils that meet

the criteria below:

• Sodium: ≤230mgi

• Total Sugar: Fruit in lite syrup

or 100% Juicei i i or ≤12gi i i

• Sat Fat: ≤ 2giv

• Trans Fat: 0g

Protein • Eggs

• Nuts, Seeds, Beans and Lentils with

nothing added

• Beans, Meat, Poultry and Seafood that

meet criteria below:

• Sodium ≤ 480mgx

• Sat Fat: ≤2gxi

• Trans Fat: 0g

• Nuts/Seeds responding spreads that

meet the criteria below:

• Sodium: ≤230mg

• Total Sugar: <4g per 2T/1ozxii

• Trans Fat: 0g

Dairy • Unflavored/Unsweetened low-fat (1%),

or skim/non-fat milk or yogurt

• Flavored skim/non-fat milk or yogurt

• Unsweetened milk substitutes (e.g. Soy)

• Cheese that meets the criteria below:

• Sodium: ≤ 480mgxiii

• Sat Fat: ≤3g | Trans Fat: 0g

• Flavored milk, milk substitutes, and

yogurt, that meets the criteria below:

• Sodium: ≤480mgxiii

• Total Sugar: ≤ 22g(milkxiv)

≤ 30g(yogurtxv)

• Saturated Fat: ≤ 3g

• Trans Fat: 0g

76

Resources: For more information, please visit the following links:

I. HealthyFoodBankHub.org II. Add a widget to your website to provide easy access to healthy

recipes: http://healthyfoodbankhub.feedingamerica.org/widget-creator/

III. Foods to Encourage Background Document: http://healthyfoodbankhub.feedingamerica.org/resource/foods-to-encourage- background/

References Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Sodium Threshold for a Non-Entrée/Non Meal item not to exceed ≤230mg per serving. USDA Food and Nutrition Service Standard for School Lunches CFBAI Category Specific Uniform Criteria CFBAI Category Specific Uniform Criteria United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 FDA 10. Appendix B: Additional Requirements for Nutrient Content Claims, 2009 Claim for at least “good source” of dietary fiber | RACC = Relative Amount Customarily Consumed United States Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 CFBAI Category Specific Uniform Criteria CFBAI Category Specific Uniform Criteria Consistent with criteria for “healthy”, CFBAI FDA/USDA Lean meat, fish, poultry CFBAI Category Specific Uniform Criteria Alliance for a Healthier Generation sodium criteria for low-fat and non-fat dairy products IOM Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading the Way Toward Healthier youth IOM Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading the Way Toward Healthier youth

http://healthyfoodbankhub.feedingamerica.org/

http://healthyfoodbankhub.feedingamerica.org/widget-creator/



http://healthyfoodbankhub.feedingamerica.org/resource/foods-to-encourage-background/








second harvest food bank of lehigh valley and northeast ... · second harvest food bank began its...

Documents