1. CHILDHOOD HUNGER ON LONG ISLAND
Policy Brief
Presented by:
Rushka Tcholakova
516-505-4425
Rtcholakova@hwcli.com
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 1

2. PROBLEM
In December 2009, the National Anti-Hunger Organization (NAHO) a group of the nation’s
leading anti-hunger groups, released a report indicating 16.7 million American children, an average of
22.5 percent of this Nation’s youngest members, live in households that face a constant struggle with
food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition (NAHO, 2009). The U.S. pays more than $90 billion annually for
the direct and indirect costs of hunger-related charities, illnesses, and psychosocial dysfunction and the
impact of less education/lower productivity (Blueprint 2008). As a Nation, our food production rates are
more than adequate to feed every child, individual, and family. The infrastructure of networks and
systems exemplify our ability to be leaders in industry from the integration with the global economy, to
the water systems, internet, and transportation.
Yet, when it comes to ensuring all American children have access to enough healthy food to lead
active, healthy lives, the investment, resources, and leadership has been lacking. “While America’s
nutrition safety net is established by the federal government, it is administered largely by state and local
agencies” (Blueprint 2008). In the past, the lack of commitment from leadership and resources has
stalled the progress of eradicating child hunger in the U.S. With President Obama’s goal of ending
childhood hunger by 2015, a window of opportunity is available for Long Island schools, community
organizations, and government to mobilize the fight and collectively pave the road to ending Childhood
Hunger.
IMPACT/SIGNIFICANCE
Exposure to hunger on any level—whether it’s food insecurity, chronic hunger, or
malnutrition—can lead to tragic effects for a child’s bio-psychosocial development. The devastating
results will have severe implications on the future of this country’s economic prosperity and
development. The implications of childhood hunger can be categorized into short term and long term
results.
Short term: By not having enough healthy food, hungry children are placed at risk of “being sick
more often or even hospitalized, suffer growth impairment, incur developmental impairments, establish
social and behavioral problem, and have lower academic achievement” (Cook & Jeng, 2009). The
average cost of pediatric hospitalization is $12, 000 (Cook & Jeng, 2009). Because of the health problems
caused by hunger, caregivers are placed at risk of having greater absenteeism, and turnover in the work
environment. All of which lead to greater expenses for the employer. For families that already have
limited financial resources, missing work days causes additional hardships in securing assets and
achieving financial stability.
Long term: “Human capital theory, developed by Gary Becker in the early 1960’s, is a very useful
framework for considering the economic consequence of childhood food insecurity” (Cook & Jeng,
2009). Human capital is the collection of capabilities and expertise an individual can contribute to the
workforce. It is a combination of the genetic predispositions coupled with the individual’s environmental
interaction that determine the success rate of the individual in the work and social environment. The
foundation for gaining maximum human capital is through access in education and academic
achievement (Cook & Jeng, 2009). Not meeting the nutritional needs of a child lowers the rate of
academic achievement. The effects of chronic malnutrition in childhood will later on create a workforce
pool that is less competitive, educated, and unskilled and not as well prepared physically, emotionally or
socially to perform effectively (Cook & Jeng, 2009); thus, impacting their contribution to social/economic
well being of society at large.
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 2

3. GENDER/RACIAL/SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES
It is well-understood that a lack of financial resources and purchasing power is at the root of
hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. Nearly one in four children live in households that do not
have access to enough nutritious food to lead active, healthy lives (NAHO, 2009). New York State
Community Action Association (March 2009) reported 144,197 out of a total of 2,770,641 Long Islanders
(Nassau and Suffolk County combined) are classified households with incomes below the federal poverty
line—that’s $18,310 for a family of three; 41,000 of which are children (NYSCAA, 2009). Poverty
disproportionately impacts people of color. When compared to their White (non-Hispanic) and
Hispanic/Latino counter parts, Blacks/African Americans have a higher percentage of poverty rates;
roughly 21.2 % of Black/African American, followed by 19.6 % of Hispanic/Latino, and 8.4% of Whites
(NYSCAA, 2009). There is a high correlation of poverty rates as it relates to education and gender. For
Suffolk County, 89.3% of adults (25+) living in poverty have at least a High School Degree; 31.4% have a
Bachelor’s Degree. For Nassau County, adults (25+) holding at least a High School Degree averaged in to
89.9% compared to those 25+ with a Bachelor’s Degree who averaged out to 40.3% (NYSCAA, 2009).
Furthermore percentages of households in poverty headed by women with children comprised of a
larger number then those by double headed households: 59.7% for Nassau and 54.2% for Suffolk
(NYSCAA, 2009).
RATIONALE: REDUCING THE PROBLEM
As Long Island communities and schools attempt to rebuild the road to financial stability, the
need to address hunger, food insecurity, and access to nutrition is now more relevant than ever. Hungry
students cannot learn and according to the Food Research and Action Center (2009), hungry adolescents
are more likely to cause disciplinary problems, not get a long with peers, and get suspended from
school. Millions of federal reimbursement dollars are lost every year when students do not participate in
the array of food delivery programs available: free/reduced school breakfast & lunch, summer food
service programs, etc. (The Nutrition Consortium of NYS, 2009). That is money that could be used to
stimulate Long Island communities.
Alleviation of hunger will take a resolution-focused, holistic and collaborative approach: one
that embraces the socioeconomic disparities; lack of access to nutritious foods in low income
communities; improving the availability and access to government nutrition assistance programs;
addressing low participation rates of eligible children in available programs; increase funding to enhance
and expand nutritious education; and expand asset building, financial services and education.
Accomplishing the basic human right that all persons should be able to have access to the nutritious
food needed to lead healthy lives will take on a collective effort between the federal, state, and local
government, schools, community organizations, nonprofit groups, business, and individuals. Derived
from NAHO’s 2008 Blueprint to End Hunger, see Appendix A for an outline of the actions each sector
needs to take to build the collaboration in achieving this goal.
THEORETICAL/HISTORICAL/EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
The challenges facing the eradication of childhood hunger for Long Island are rooted within the
regions 125 schools districts varying in size, race, ethnicity, wealth, and educational outcomes, and
collectively houses 416,093 students (Long Island Index, 2009, p.4). Although Long Island has a large
number of districts, the majority of them are relatively small: 83% cover less than fifteen square miles,
36% cover less than five square miles, and 75% enroll fewer than 5,500 students (Long Island Index,
2009, p.5). “This fractionated structure..produces a great range of anomalies and aberrations: in school
revenues, expenditure, and educational outcomes” (Long Island Index, 2009, p.5). The effects have
resulted in disparities of funding districts spend per pupil; differences in education need; and low
performance rates when compounding high-needs students.
Funding sources for Long Island schools vary from district to district. In general the three
principal sources are state aid, local commercial taxes, and property tax. The historic segregation of the
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 3

4. region’s housing patterns has produced great disparities in property value between communities.
Because school taxes make up for a majority of the property taxes, wealthier districts are able to raise
greater revenues when compared to their poorer neighbors. “Over the past ten years, the gap between
the wealthiest 10% of districts and the poorest 10% has grown to over $11,000 per student” (Long Island
Index, 2009, p.6).
State aid is intended to close the gap of fiscal inequity per pupil between school districts.
However, it does not account for the greater educational obstacles that face poorer districts: high
student population in low income districts, higher student-teacher ratio, disproportionate level of
education of the teachers in low income verses wealthier districts, and differences in resources such
computers, text books, Advanced Placement courses, specialized classes (such as art and music), and
better facilities. Even more, when including the state aid, wealthier districts still come out with 50%
more revenue per student (Long Island Index, 2009, p.6).
In addition, like housing patterns, Long Island communities vary in commercial tax revenue
(another funding source for school districts). Schools can be very well funded in communities that house
a high number of commercial properties, while also reducing the tax burden on the homeowner. And as
segregation is evident in the housing patterns, it is also evident in the commercial properties. For
example, when compared to areas with low commercial tax revenue like Roosevelt, Mount Sinai, and
Herricks School districts, Uniondale homeowners proportionately pay 61% less in school tax levy (Long
Island Index, 2009, p. 6).
In summary, the large number of schools coupled with the segregation of housing and
commercial property results in the fiscal inequality of funding for schools districts. Trickled down,
disproportionate funding disables high-need schools to conduct effective outreach and education for
utilizations of food programs such as the free/reduced school breakfast/lunch programs; prohibits them
from their ability to increase utilization of these programs; as well as prevents a successful transition
from the school year into the summer months by directing the students and parents to food service
programs such as the summer food service programs.
GAPS
Although programs like the free/reduced school breakfast/lunch, afterschool meals, and
summer food service programs exist to address child hunger, there are gaps in the delivery and
utilization of these programs. For example, although school breakfast/lunch programs are made
available and are for the most part well known, barriers to utilization lie within the structure and stigma
within the programs. Designed to target low income families, the school food programs segregate the
students into the have’s and have not’s, and thus allowing for stigmatization, bullying, and steering
those students in need from utilizing the service. From a structural perspective, the delivery of these
programs has proven in effective because of the time frame in which students are allowed to access. For
example, the conflicting bus schedules, the rush to get to classes on time, and tardiness of children in
households where the primary caregiver is not as vested in the child’s education cause for low utilization
rates of the school breakfast program. Nationwide, schools have taken initiative to reform program
delivery to incorporate universal school breakfast, grab-n-go breakfast, or breakfast in the classroom
(Nutrition Consortium of NYS, May 2009).
Challenges facing the summer food programs are two fold: administrative and
education. The lack of community education and awareness around the importance of nutrition for a
child’s development and education as well as the existence of programs available during the summer
months, results in low utilization rates. From an administrative perspective, the reimbursement rate for
the summer food service program only covers a fraction of the cost of food. Although great for
programs already established for the summer, it leaves the majority of programs needed in high-risk
areas scrambling to cover overhead cost. The low reimbursement rate coupled with the high volume of
labor-intensive paperwork steers organizations away from becoming sponsors or feeding sights.
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 4

5. The Position
Every five years lawmakers and their staff have an opportunity to update and reauthorize the
federal Child Nutrition Programs to meet the growing needs of the Nation. As we discuss issues of
childhood hunger it is important to understand the policies that impact communities, help shape service
delivery, and utilization. The responsibility of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act is to ensure that
children have access to quality, healthy, safe meals are provided during the school day and throughout
the summer months.
In order to improve access to the child nutrition programs for Long Island, the Child Nutrition
Reauthorization must:
Streamline enrollment through the Hunger Free Schools Act (S.1343/H.R. 4148) by
utilizing Medicaid and SCHIP data for direct certification.
Improve area eligibility test by lowering the threshold for Afterschool and Summer
Nutrition programs from 50 percent to 40 percent through the Improved Program
Access Act (S.3040/H.R.4734).
Allow high poverty schools to serve universal free breakfast and lunch for five years and
receive reimbursement based on socioeconomic data through the Paperless Enrollment
for School Meals Act (S.1226/H.R.2803).
Provide access to nutritious meals for young children (S.2749/H.R. 4402) by increasing
CACFP reimbursement, adding a third meal or snack option, improving area eligibility for
child care centers and homes, increasing administrative rate for sponsoring agencies,
and streamlining to simplify programs
Increase Universal Classroom Breakfast Programs by allowing schools use grant money
for the start up costs and provide breakfast in the classroom free of charge to all
students for at least three years (H.R.4325 Universal Classroom Breakfast Expansion
Act).
Justification
The at-risk population consists of the following geographic and demographic information. Please note
that the target population is children—between the ages of 0-18—who meet the federal income
guidelines for the federally funded food delivery programs. This excludes the adult population.
Geographics
• Long Island, New York area
• Including 127 school districts
• Serving over 118 miles in length and 20 miles in width. (Long Island Index, n.d.)
Demographics
• Total of 476,00 students with 97,803 students meeting the federal income guidelines for federally
funded meal programs.
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 5

6. NEEDS
Last school year, almost 100,000 of Long Island's students qualified for free and reduced-price
school meals. However, only 24% of these low-income students are eating school breakfast. When 100
students in a school are classified at the paid rate when 75 of them should be classified at the free rate
and 25 at the reduced-price rate, the school misses out on $67,230 in federal reimbursements: dollars
that would stimulate the local economy. An increase in participation rates will also result in an increase
in Title 1, E-rate, after-school snack, summer food, and over all foundation funding. Long Island is
missing out on millions of federal reimbursement dollars when children do not participate in the array of
food delivery programs such as the Summer Food Service Program and the Free/Reduced School meal
programs.
2009 Percentage of Long Island Students
Utilizing Free/Reduced Meal Programs
Total Eligible
Students Percentage of Students
Utilizing the Free/Reduced
24% Breakfast Meal Program
In addition, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) serving breakfast and lunch to 200
children per day, five days per week, for ten weeks would be eligible to claim approximately $50,950 to
recover their food, labor and miscellaneous costs. The additional money from reimbursement would
allow programs to improve the nutritional quality of the meals and may free up money for other
programmatic needs. Unfortunately, on Long Island, less than 8% of children enrolled in the
free/reduced-price school meal programs access SFSP during the summer.
2009 Summer Food Service Program
Utilization
Total Eligible Students
8% of Students
accessing SFSP
Trends
In 2009, a survey, Share Our Strength found that 83% of teachers reported seeing children
hungry in the classroom at least once a week. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
nearly one in seven households in New York struggled with hunger in 2006-2008. With the recent
decrease in federal funding for Emergency Food & Shelter Program for Nassau County, the elimination
of funding in Suffolk County, and the threat to layoff hundreds of teachers throughout Long Island, it is
critical that food resources are made accessible to children in their communities and federal nutrition
programs present a solution.
Conclusion
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 6

7. As indicated, a wide range of factors contributes to the lack of full participation in these child
nutrition programs. Hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity impacts the development, health, and
academic achievement of our children. This Nation’s future economic and social well -being relies on the
success of its youngest and most vulnerable members. Therefore, it is a shared responsibility to address
and work on ending hunger by 2015, together. As a nation we are more than capable to feed every child
through the establishment of policies that will create opportunity and access to the services needed to
achieve a better life. Through collaborative efforts and partnerships, we can secure the programs in
place to work as they were intended: making sure all residents are reached; and that programs are
utilized and appropriately structured.
References
Anti-Hunger Policy Platform, (September 5, 2006). Anti-Hunger Policy Platform of New York State and
City 2007-2012. NYS and NYC anti-hunger organizations.
http://www.hwcli.com/documents/201.pdf
Cook, J., Jeng, K., (2009). Child Food Insecurity: The Economic Impact on our Nation. Feeding America.
http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/upload/resource/FA_Report_july2009_full.pdf
Long Island Index. (2009). 2009 Long Island Index Report. Long Island, New York: Curran & Connors, Inc.
and The Rauch Foundation. Retrieved from: www.longislandindex.org.
Long Island Index (N.D.). What is Long Island? Long Island, New York: Curran & Connors, Inc. and The
Rauch Foundation. Retrieved from: National Anti-Hunger Organizations (NAHO), (November
2008). Blueprint to End Hunger 2008.
http://www.pittsburghfoodbank.org/pdf/NationalBlueprint.pdf
National Anti-Hunger Organizations (NAHO), (December 17, 2009). Roadmap to End Childhood Hunger
in America by 2015. http://strength.org/pdfs/NAHORoadmaptoEndChildhoodHunger.pdf
New York State Community Action Association (NYSCAA), (March 2009). New York State Poverty Report
2009. http://www.nyscaaonline.org/PovReport/2009/2009PovReportWeb.pdf
Nutrition Consortium of NYS, (September 2009). School Breakfast Program
http://www.nutritionconsortium.org/childnutrition/schoolbreakfast.htm
Nutrition Consortium of NYS, (May 2009). Shine with School Breakfast: A Review of the School Breakfast
Program in NYS 22007-2008.
http://www.nutritionconsortium.org/childnutrition/documents/2007-
2008ShinewithSBReport.pdf
Share our Strength (n.d). Understanding Childhood Hunger: Facts on Childhood Hunger. 1730 M Street
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036. Retrieved from :
http://strength.org/childhood_hunger/hunger_facts/
USDA, Food and Nutrition, (August 2009). National School Lunch Program.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf
Watkins, Shirley, (January 12, 2001). A Report to Congress: Foods Sold in Competition with USDA School
Meal Programs. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/_private/CompetitiveFoods/report_congress.htm
August 16, 2010 Policy Brief 7