Lisa Jordan Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies e. ljordan@drew.edu p. 973.408.3740 drew.edu/ess

Biology Department Drew University 36 Madison Avenue Madison, New Jersey 07940

2

Food Insecurity in Morris County A Spatial Analysis for the Interfaith Food Pantry

Prepared by Lisa Jordan, Samantha Lacey (Class ’15), and students in Geographic Information Systems (Spring 2015)

5 May 2015

Summary The Drew University Spatial Data Center, in conjunction with student participation in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), agreed to assist the Morris County Interfaith Food Pantry (IFP) and Pat McGuinn’s Community Based Learning (CBL) coursework in Political Science, by providing a spatial analysis of food insecurity in Morris County. The original aims of this study were to 1) Identify locations and populations with the greatest food needs in Morris County, and 2) Help devise a plan to best meet those needs. This exploratory report of food needs in Morris County goes some way toward answering the first question. First, a snapshot of the working poor is examined, using information from the United Way ALICE Report for New Jersey. Then, demographic and geographic differences in poverty, the working poor, and IFP clients are assessed. Four methods for identifying gaps in food access are considered, and an array of Morris County web maps for different audiences are reviewed. Last, extensions of this exploratory analysis are suggested. We hope to facilitate future discussions in a positive way, in which answers the second question about food distribution can benefit from this review of local demographic and food security measures. ALICE Snapshot Though federal and state agencies offer a variety of programs for the most impoverished citizens in the U.S., there is a sizable group of working class individuals who struggle daily to pay for rent, child care, health care, and even food. The Interfaith Food Pantry of Morris County recognizes this sizable and important gap in government programming, and is an example of community leadership that responds effectively to the growing need for access to food. Their labor honors the hard work of so many in our society that have fallen victim to structural failures in employment and governance, which ought to provide “the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being … including food.”1 Through a report published last year, the United Way sought to better describe, measure, and quantify the working poor, with the creation of the ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) index.2 The ALICE Report summarizes characteristics of the working poor by county and municipality in New Jersey. Our work explores the ALICE measures for Morris County in detail, particularly in how they might apply to planning decisions faced by the IFP in the coming five to ten years. Table 1 describes the summary poverty and working poor measures for Morris County. The combined poverty and ALICE measure totals to 25 percent, indicating that up to a quarter of Morris County’s population struggles to adequately provide for themselves and/or their family. Though the rate is the lowest in the state, that a quarter of Morris County residents are likely to need assistance at some point is of significant concern to the sustainability and health of our community. Further, less than one percent of the household survival budget is attributed to food costs, suggesting that obligations for funding rent, childcare, and transportation squeeze individual and family budgets so tightly that reliance on food assistance becomes necessary. The following sections explore the 39 towns, townships and boroughs of Morris County in more detail. Table 1. ALICE New Jersey Summary Measures for Morris County for 2012

Measure: Value: Population 497,999 Number of Households 179,876 Median Household Income $95,294 (state average $69,667) Unemployment Rate 7.1% (state average 9.5%) Gini Coefficient 0.45 (state average 0.47) Poverty 7,979 Households (4%) ALICE 38,175 Households (21%)

1 United Nations. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25. Available online: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. 2 United Way. 2014. ALICE New Jersey: Study of Financial Hardship. Available online: http://unitedwaynnj.org/ourwork/alice_nj.php.

3

Household Survival Budget Single: $27,599 Family: $67,871

(2014, p. 141) Situating Morris County Figure 1 illustrates the spatial extent of Morris County, situated in close proximity to major metropolitan areas of New York and Newark. Morris County is bisected by I-80 and I-287. Population density in Morris County is tied closely to these major road ways, as depicted in Figure 2. Figures 1 and 2 were displayed using Population Explorer, a demographic analysis tool for food security, developed by USAID’s Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET).3 Population Explorer displays 2012 population density estimates developed by Oakridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) LandScan program. The population density in Morris County ranges from 0 to 5,330 people per km2. The most densely populated areas include Morristown, Parsippany-Troy Hills, and Dover. Figure 1. Situating Morris County using Population Explorer

3 Population Explorer. 2015. Available online: http://www.populationexplorer.com

4

Figure 2. Population Density in Morris County

5

According to the American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census from 2009-2013, the highest percentages of populations already receiving public assistance income or food stamps (SNAP) in Morris County are in Morristown, Dover, and Victory Gardens. Figure 3 illustrates the differences in SNAP use by census tracts in Morris County. Figure 3. Public Assistance by Census Tracts in Morris County, 2009-2013

6

Many of the areas identified by the map of Morris County public assistance use are also highlighted in the Figure 4, which illustrates poverty rates in Morris County for 2012, also relying on American Community Survey (ACS) results. As the ALICE Report stated, the poverty rate for Morris County is 4 percent, but an analysis of municipalities reveals that some areas experience rates twice the average. The highest poverty rates in the county are found in Netcong Borough (13%), Morristown (10%), Riverdale Borough (9%), Victory Gardens Borough (9%), and Wharton Borough (8%). These municipalities are outlined and labeled in Figure 4. Figure 4. Poverty Rates in Morris County

7

The ALICE rates, generated by the United Way, are for populations above the poverty level. The ALICE rate for Morris County is 21%, but again, some municipalities experience ALICE rates that are much higher than the average. Figure 5 depicts ALICE rates across the county. The highest ALICE rate, of 43 percent, is in Victory Gardens Borough. Other high rates include Dover (40%), Riverdale Borough (38%), Mount Arlington (33%) and Netcong Borough (32%). There is some overlap in having both high poverty rates and high ALICE rates. Netcong Borough, Victory Gardens Borough, and Riverdale Borough all have among the highest poverty rates and the highest ALICE rates. Figure 5. ALICE Rates in Morris County

8

Because ALICE rates do not include populations in poverty, it is helpful to combine the poverty and ALICE rates to get a sense of the communities with the greatest overall need. Figure 6 illustrates ALICE combined with poverty across Morris County. The average poverty plus ALICE rate for the county is 25 percent; however Victory Gardens Borough is over twice rate that with 52% of the population that is either in poverty or considered ALICE. Four other municipalities have poverty plus ALICE rates over 40 percent. They include Dover (47%), Riverdale Borough (47%), Netcong Borough (45%), and Morristown (40%). Figure 6. Poverty Rates plus ALICE Rates in Morris County

9

The Interfaith Food Pantry publishes an annual report with information about the total number of families, clients, and visits that they receive, by town, township, or borough in Morris County.4 This information was copied into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis and mapping. The raw count data illustrate an upward trend in both families and individual clients over the past five years. Overall population measures for the county are not refined enough to provide a context for these trends. It may be that overall population increased at a similar rate, which would imply that rates of IFP use have not changed. There is insufficient information to conclude that rates of use have also increased. This information also does not take into account emergency aid provided by the pantry, or clients that reside outside Morris County. Figure 7. Regular Morris County Clients of the Interfaith Food Pantry: Trends over Time

4 Interfaith Food Pantry. 2010-2014. Annual Reports. Available online: http://mcifp.org/about-us/annual-report/

1,839 1,754 1,753 1,900

2,113 2,294

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Regular Morris County IFP Client Families, 2009-2013

*does not include emergency clients or out-of county clientsSource: Morris County Interfaith Food Pantry, Annual Reports, 2010-2014:

http://mcifp.org/about-us/annual-report/

4,459 4,208

4,526

5,084 5,583

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Regular Morris County IFP Clients, 2010-2014*

*does not include emergency clients or out-of county clientsSource: Morris County Interfaith Food Pantry, Annual Reports, 2010-2014:

http://mcifp.org/about-us/annual-report/

10

Figure 8 shows the numbers of IFP clients over time by municipality. IFP residents largely reside in Morristown, which comprised 28 percent of all IFP clients in 2014. Morristown (28%), Dover (17%), and Parsippany-Troy Hills (6%) clients comprise over half of all IFP clients. Clearly, an increase of clients in townships along the I-80 corridor is visible. The southern and northeastern portion of the county have fewer clients. The southern portion of the county is more sparsely populated, but in the northeast area, there is a higher population density. Figure 8. Distribution of Morris County Food Clients over Time

To quickly summarize, ALICE (21%, 102,659 individuals) and ALICE plus poverty (25%, 125,827 individuals) populations vary in density across the county. IFP clients capture only a small proportion of the ALICE population (0.9% county, 4,526 individuals). If the IFP planning goals include outreach to ALICE populations, then increased attention to anywhere in the county would be beneficial. However, the following section describes some targeting strategies to reach those least included.

11

Methods for Identifying Gaps in Food Security To reiterate, any extension of services by the food pantry in connection to ALICE populations will benefit Morris County. In this report we document four different methods for identifying gaps in food security, building on the ALICE report. First, we compare the percent of ALICE populations that are currently covered by IFP to identify areas least covered (proportionally). Second, we compare total ALICE population covered by IFP to identify gaps based on the magnitude (counts) of those needing assistance. Third, we compare standardized rates of IFP coverage to standardized ALICE rates to identify gaps. Last, we add the Drew University 2015 food pantry survey into consideration to see how other providers might be covering geographic gaps in IFP coverage. For all methods, we compare the United Way 2012 estimates with IFP 2012 data. Method 1: Comparing ALICE and IFP Rates in Morris County For each municipality, we calculated the number of IFP Clients as a percentage of the ALICE population ([IFP Clients 2012 ÷ ALICE Population]*100). The results of this calculation are shown in Figure 9. The areas with the lowest proportion of ALICE residents covered by IFP are Kinnelon Borough, Mendham Borough, Harding Township, Morris Township, Washington Township, Riverdale Borough, and Pequannock Township. Figure 9. Comparing ALICE and IFP rates in Morris County

12

Method 2: Comparing ALICE and IFP Counts in Morris County Comparing rates, as shown in Method 1, can be useful, but comparing total counts or the areas with higher total numbers of ALICE is another strategy that can be used when trying to identify and target areas of concern. Figure 10 shows the total ALICE population minus the number of IFP clients. In this approach, areas with greater population are privileged (compared to the last method, where less densely populated areas are privileged). In Figure 10, the two areas with the least number of ALICE populations served are Parsippany-Troy Hills, with 11,775 people identified as ALICE, but only 265 clients in 2012. Mount Olive ranked second in the gap population with 8,211 ALICE individuals, but only 231 IFP clients. Figure 10. Comparing ALICE and IFP total counts in Morris County

13

Method 3: Comparing Standardized Rates of ALICE and IFP Clients We next created a bivariate scatterplot and regression between IFP Client rates per municipality and ALICE rates by municipality (Figure 11). The association between ALICE and IFP rates at the township level is 0.175. Where IFP clients account for only 17.5 percent of the variation in ALICE rates. The two measures are positively related, so where IFP rates are higher, ALICE rates also tend to be high, and where IFP rates are low, ALICE rates also tend to be low. The upper right-hand quadrant of the scatterplot in Figure 11 illustrates locations where both IFP clients and ALICE clients are above average, compared to the county as a whole. The lower right-hand quadrant indicates locations where IFP clients are above average, but ALICE rates are below average. It may be that Morris Plains Borough and Mine Hill Township are over-represented among IFP clients, compared with county ALICE needs. The lower, left-hand quadrant shows municipalities where both IFP rates and ALICE rates are below average, which is where we expect these locations to fall. Last, the upper-left hand quadrant describes areas that have below average IFP clients, but above average ALICE rates. These are potential areas to target for improved access. The top three ALICE scores in this quadrant include: Victory Gardens Borough, Riverdale Borough, and Mount Arlington Borough. Of all three methods, only one location overlaps, and it overlaps for only two of the methods. Riverdale Borough might be targeted because it has a low proportion of IFP clients to ALICE clients and has a below average IFP client rate and over one standard deviation above average rate for ALICE, compared with the rest of the county. Figure 11. Scatterplot and Bivariate Regression between Standardized IFP Client Rates and ALICE Rates in Morris County Municipalities

14

Method 4: Considering Other County Food Providers in ALICE Gaps Last, it is useful to consult additional data, collected in spring 2015 at Drew University, which describes food providers in addition to IFP ratios. Figure 12 shows the estimated monthly client access at county food pantries in addition to proportion of the ALICE population served by the IFP. With the exception of Morris Plains, there is considerable overlap between where other food providers work and where IFP clients reside. Some of the less populated areas are less covered. Though over 30 additional pantries were included in this overlay, gaps remain both in reaching all Morris County food providers and in examining providers located in neighboring counties. Figure 12. Estimated Monthly Client Numbers for Morris County Food Pantries (2015) and IFP Clients as a Percent of ALICE Populations

15

Visualizing and Mapping Pantry Data In addition to analyzing IFP, ALICE and pantry data, a series of maps based on the Drew University Pantry Survey (2015), are included for discussion and comparison at the pantry and for community users interested in updated information on food access. Table 2 below provides links and screenshots of the maps that were generated. Table 2. Maps for Food Pantry and Community Use

1. Google Fusion Map for IFP Use

Google Fusion is a mash-up of survey data and location markers: http://tinyurl.com/ifp2015

16

2. ArcGIS Online Maps for IFP Use

IFP Can Access Maps and Data Tables on Poverty, ALICE Rates, and IFP Client Counts: http://tinyurl.com/ifpsurvey

3. Google Maps for Community Use

Anyone in the community can access information about food pantry location, hours, etc. http://tinyurl.com/morriscofood

17

Conclusion As the ALICE New Jersey report makes clear, any extension of providers for the working poor is both welcome and needed. Regardless of how IFP chooses to plan its food provision, there will likely be more need than resources. Clearly, failures in policy, governance and employment practices are what is most urgently needed to ‘fill the gap,’ and more closely fulfill the right to a standard of living that provides for the health and wellbeing of all individuals and families. What this report does provide is a local, county assessment of current poverty rates, food assistance usage, ALICE demographics, pantry availability, and several means to access the data. We also provided several methods by which to identify the most pressing gaps in food security for ALICE populations. However, our recommendations are by no means definitive. We hope that this exploration of food insecurity in Morris County will open the door to continued collaboration with IFP and other food pantries to extend services to the most needy. In addition to this report, we are happy to provide instruction on embedding, distributing and editing any and all of the shared maps. We can extend on the existing maps to better denote coverage areas of all surveyed pantries to better see gaps. Last, there are important caveats, such as demographic disparities and mobility patterns that need to be more fully explored. For example, of households at or below ALICE thresholds in Morris County, 46 percent are Hispanic, 41 percent are black, and 34 percent are seniors. A greater interrogation of the demographic compositions of ALICE populations might be useful for IFP to consider, especially because ALICE and minority status is a compounding concern. Minority, elderly, and family populations should be a focus for future assistance, because the barriers that they face to food access and assistance are much greater, due to racism and discrimination, both historically and presently. Last, all ALICE and IFP information discussed in this report uses residential demographics. However, New Jersey, including Morris County, consists of highly mobile populations. According the US Census, On the Map application, Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics Survey (2011), the work area profiles in Morris County are much different for jobs earning less than $1,250/month than those earning over $3,333/month (see Figure 13).5 The northeast and western portions of the county have greater concentrations of lower paying jobs. Of further significance, about 65 percent of people employed in Morris County live outside the county (see Figure 14). Only 35 percent of Morris County’s population works in Morris County. Since Morris County has the lowest ALICE and poverty rates in the state, it might be anticipated that a sizable portion of the working population that travels to Morris County each workday has needs as great or exceeding those of residents. Workers, but not residents, may be an important population for IFP to consider for extended assistance. Figure 13. Work Area Profiles by Job Earnings in Morris County (US Census, On the Map Application)

Work Area Profile for Jobs Earning < $1,250/mo. (16.7%)

5 US Census Bureau. 2015. On the Map Application, Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics Survey (2011). Available online: http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

18

Work Area Profile for Jobs Earning > $3,333/mo. (57.3%)

Figure 14. Job Mobility in Morris County (US Census, On the Map Application)