summer meals transportation barriers and solutions€¦ · web viewsummer meals transportation...
TRANSCRIPT
Summer Meals Transportation Barriers and Solutions:
Opportunities and Practices for Promising Partnerships and
Recommendations for Stakeholders
Client: Share our Strength’s No Kid Hungry Campaign, Center for Best Practices
Client Liaison: Kim Caldwell, Senior Program Manager,
[email protected], 202-478-6524
Team: Joy Bentley, Stephanie Chan, Deborah Swerdlow, Theresa Toll, Megan Tracz
December 1, 2015
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank our client liaison, Kim Caldwell, for her guidance and support throughout this research
project—from providing us with background information on the summer meals program and
connecting us with potential interviewees to promptly answering questions as they arose. We are
grateful for the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to No Kid Hungry’s mission and help
summer meals program serve their communities.
We also thank our interviewees for taking the time to answer our questions, both in the initial
phone interviews and in subsequent follow-up conversations via email or phone. This report
would not exist without the generous contributions of their time and the patience they showed us.
Lastly, we thank our research advisors, Joan Dudik-Gayoso and Francisco Moris-Orengo, for
sharing their expertise, thoughtful feedback, and words of encouragement throughout this
process.
2
Table of ContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................iii
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................2
Overview of Childhood Hunger in America........................................................................................2The Federal Summer Meals Program and the Summer Hunger Gap...................................................3The Transportation Barrier in Summer Meals Programs.....................................................................6Promising Practices with Summer Meals............................................................................................6
METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................7
Research Questions..............................................................................................................................7Data Methods......................................................................................................................................9
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................10
Cross-Sector Collaboration for Local and State Solutions.................................................................16Bringing Meals to Sites.....................................................................................................................19Bringing Children to Sites.................................................................................................................22
RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................30
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................33
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX...................................................................................................................................39
ADDENDUM................................................................................................................................50
Core Courses Applied to Our Capstone Project.................................................................................50
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) aims to ensure that children who receive free
and reduced-price school meals can continue to receive healthy food when school is out.
However, only 12 percent of eligible children nationwide participate in SFSP. One reason why
summer meals programs are underutilized is that many families lack safe, reliable transportation
to a summer meals site. Although far from the only barrier to summer meals participation, this
transportation barrier has been identified by summer meals sponsors and Share Our Strength’s
No Kid Hungry (NKH) campaign as a pressing area of concern because even the best planned,
most engaging summer meals program will not succeed if children cannot reach the site.
This project aims to answer three research questions: 1) In what ways are state agencies,
local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites building partnerships to overcome
transportation barriers to summer meals programs? 2) What practices are associated with
promising partnerships between summer meals sponsors and sites and state or local transit
providers? and 3) How can the NKH Center for Best Practices support summer meals
stakeholders such as state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites
that are trying to overcome transportation barriers? Given the relatively few communities that are
implementing transportation solutions and the early stages of those partnerships, we have limited
our findings to identifying practices associated with promising partnerships.
Our research design consisted of a literature review and semi-structured interviews with
stakeholders involved in summer meals, including national agencies, state agencies, local transit
providers, summer meals sponsors and sites (who also received a pre-interview questionnaire to
collect background information), and advocacy organizations at the national, state, and local
4
level. We found that the local and state context matters greatly for determining how to address
transportation barriers and that cross-sector collaboration is a fundamental underpinning to
promising partnerships. We also found that transportation partnerships tend to fall into two
categories: bringing meals to sites (making it easier for sites to be closer to children by
eliminating the need for on-site food preparation) and bringing children to sites, either through
fixed-route service, demand-response service, or vehicles that are owned by the summer meals
program or shared with other community groups. For each area of our findings (cross-sector
collaboration, meals to sites, and children to sites), we identified practices that appear to be
associated with promising partnerships. We also compiled recommendations for the main
stakeholders involved in transportation partnerships: state agencies, local transit providers, and
summer meals sponsors and sites.
We concluded our research with five recommendations for the NKH Center for Best
Practices as they support stakeholders trying to overcome summer meals transportation barriers:
1. Include information about transportation barriers in existing and future NKH summer
meals resources so stakeholders begin thinking about addressing transportation early on.
2. Draw on our findings, analysis, and recommendations for summer meals sponsors and
sites to create a toolkit about how sponsors and sites can reduce transportation barriers.
3. Share our recommendations for state agencies and local transit providers with the
intended audiences, both directly and through national agencies that work with them.
4. Collect more information about existing summer meals-transportation partnerships.
5. Evaluate transportation partnerships to confirm the promising practices we identified.
5
INTRODUCTION
Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry (NKH) campaign aims to end childhood hunger by
connecting children in need to nutritious food, teaching their families how to cook healthy and
affordable meals, and investing in community organizations dedicated to these goals. Increasing
access to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is a major priority of the NKH campaign
because the program ensures that children who rely on free and reduced-price school meals can
continue receiving healthy food during the summer. Although student participation in summer
child nutrition programs has steadily increased over the last three years, NKH surveys and other
researchers have found that the programs remain severely underutilized due to persistent barriers
that include: lack of program awareness, lack of safe and reliable transportation, questions about
safety and legitimacy of the sites, concerns about food quality, and a lack of activities for the
children and meals for parents.
The NKH Center for Best Practices provides the tools and resources needed to help
elected officials and their staff, educators, and community leaders achieve success in fighting
childhood hunger. The Center for Best Practices has identified transportation as a pressing area
of concern for the summer meals program, since summer meals sponsors and sites ultimately
need children to be present to sustain the program. NKH is aware of a few summer meals
programs piloting innovative partnerships with local transportation providers and other
community organizations to address the transportation barrier, and the Center for Best Practices
wants to understand how these partnerships work and explore whether these partnerships have
practices that other summer meals stakeholders can share and scale nationwide.
1
The purpose of this research project is to 1) identify ways that summer meals programs
are partnering with local transit providers to address transportation barriers; 2) identify practices
that appear to be associated with promising summer meals-transportation partnerships; and 3)
provide guidance to NKH about how to support state agencies, local transit providers, and
summer meals sponsors and sites in replicating these partnerships in their communities.
BACKGROUND
Overview of Childhood Hunger in America
Food security—having access at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life—
is fundamental to child health and educational success (Orovecz, Pincus, Todd, & Welch, 2015).
The stark reality is that more than 15.3 million children in the United States (about 1 in 5
children) live in food-insecure households, meaning they lack the certainty that there will be
enough food to feed all members of the household at all times during the year (Coleman-Jansen,
Rabbitt, Gregory, & Singh, 2015). Households in nonmetropolitan areas are more likely to
experience food insecurity than metropolitan and suburban areas, and the region with the highest
percentage of food-insecure households is the South (Coleman-Jansen et al., 2015).
Food insecurity among children is associated with a variety of health problems including
anemia, higher levels of aggression and anxiety, higher risks of hospitalization, poorer overall
general health and oral health, and cognitive decline (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014). Additionally,
food insecurity is associated with poorer psychosocial function and development in school-age
children, behavior problems for youth, higher rates of depression, and suicidal symptoms in
adolescents (Food insecurity in the United States, 2010). Food insecurity is also associated with
2
lower math and reading gains from kindergarten to third grade and a higher likelihood of
repeating a grade for children age 6-11 (Food insecurity in the United States, 2010).
The Federal Summer Meals Program and the Summer Hunger Gap
The federal government has responded to child food insecurity concerns through a variety
of food assistance programs, including “child nutrition programs,” a term used to collectively
describe the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-
FNS) programs that provide food for children in schools or other institutional settings
(Aussenberg, 2014). These child nutrition programs include the National School Lunch Program,
School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Special Milk Program, and
the underutilized Summer Food Service Program.
The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
First piloted in 1968, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) exists to ensure that
low-income children 18 years and younger can continue to access healthy food in the summer
when school is not in session (Summer Food Service Program Frequently Asked Questions
[FAQ], n.d.). SFSP, colloquially referred to as “summer meals,” is funded by the USDA;
administered by state agencies, such as state departments of education; and run by public and
private organizations, including schools, community centers, and faith-based organizations that
serve as sponsors for one or more meal sites. USDA reimburses sponsors only for the meals
served at each site, so any unserved meals represent a loss that can be difficult to recoup. The
reimbursement rate varies by meal type (breakfast, lunch, supper, or snack), location of the site
(rural or urban), and whether the site or a vendor prepares the meal (Aussenberg, 2014). Sites
3
can serve up to two reimbursed meals to children each day (Aussenberg, 2014). State agencies
approve summer meal sites as one of three types:
● Open sites provide food to all children in the community and are based in areas in which
more than 50 percent of families are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
● Enrolled (or closed) sites provide meals to children who are participating in an activity or
program at a site where at least half of the children are eligible for free or reduced meals.
● Summer camps can also be summer meals sites, but reimbursement is only provided for
meals served to children who are eligible for free or reduced meals (FAQ, n.d.).
In 2014, 2.66 million children regularly received summer meals, compared to 21.7
million children who received free or reduced-price meals during the school year (Summer Food
Service Program: Average Daily Attendance, 2015). Unsurprisingly, research finds that
households with school-age children experience higher rates of food insecurity in the summer
(Nord & Romig, 2006). Seasonal differences in food insecurity are even greater in states
providing fewer summer meals than other states (Nord & Romig, 2006).
Considering the higher rates of food insecurity in the summer and the extent to which
food insecurity impacts child health and education, it is essential to understand why summer
meals programs are underutilized. At the most basic level, one can consider challenges facing
summer meals programs from a supply and demand framework.
Supply Challenges
Sponsors cite a variety of factors impacting their ability to open and maintain summer
meals sites. A Share Our Strength survey of summer meals sponsors finds that the most common
challenges affecting sites are: low participation by children (19 percent major challenge, 39
4
percent minor challenge), insufficient funds to cover the costs of meals (11 percent major, 29
percent minor), insufficient capacity to manage paperwork (8 percent major, 25 percent minor),
and insufficient capacity to serve meals (6 percent major, 20 percent minor) (Caldwell & Sims,
2015). Transportation barriers that impact a sponsor’s ability to provide an adequate supply of
sites include both a lack of transportation for children to travel to sites and a lack of
transportation for meals to get to sites (Endahl & Singh, 2004). Molaison & Carr (2005) find that
transportation challenges are a reason sponsors would not start a program or would discontinue a
site,1 and Endahl and Singh (2004) find that 36 percent of former sponsors cited the lack of
transportation as a very important reason behind their discontinuation of the program.
Demand Challenges
Molaison & Carr (2005) find that sponsors viewed lack of knowledge about the program
and lack of transportation to get to summer meals sites as the main barriers to participation.
Similarly, a USDA survey of sponsors finds that the top two factors limiting participation were
lack of publicity about the program and lack of transportation (Gordon & Briefel, 2003). Though
these surveys are more than 10 years old, the findings are consistent with our interviews in which
interviewees defined transportation as the “greatest challenge” for summer meals (T. Craddock,
personal communication, October 22, 2015). Given the interconnected nature of the
transportation barrier affecting a sponsor’s ability to host sites and children’s ability to access
sites, the NKH Center for Best Practices focused our research project on this topic.
1 Molaison & Carr (2005) also find that the large volume of paperwork is another reason that sponsors would not want to start a program and the primary reason a sponsor would discontinue a program.
5
The Transportation Barrier in Summer Meals Programs
Even though many of the summer meals programs take place at common gathering places
for families with children, such as schools, parks, churches, and community buildings,
transportation to and from these sites remains an issue for both urban and rural children. In rural
areas, children tend to live in isolated areas, which may limit access to meal service sites (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Mobile Feeding Model, n.d.). In urban areas, a lack of perceived safe
transportation options may limit the number of locations to which children will travel (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Mobile Feeding Model, n.d.). Many parents, whether in rural or
urban settings, do not believe their children can safely attend these meal programs unless the
program provides transportation (Harvard Family Research Project, 2004).
While some sponsors or sites provide transportation, the additional costs of providing
safe transportation for children is not feasible for many programs (Harvard Family Research
Project, 2004). Grants are available to some programs for transporting children to sites, but these
grants may not be enough to transport all eligible children (Harvard Family Research Project,
2004). Often, sponsors facing transportation barriers either simply do not provide transportation
or discontinue their summer meals program (Molaison & Carr, 2005). The USDA has concluded
that “whether it’s getting the meals to children or children to the meals, drivers, well-functioning
vehicles, and a coordinated system are necessary keys to success” (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges, n.d., para. 1).
Promising Practices with Summer Meals
Although our research focuses on addressing the transportation barriers impacting a
sponsor’s ability to host sites and children’s ability to access meals, solving transportation
6
barriers is not the final answer to creating and sustaining summer meals sites. A few common
characteristics make sites attractive places where children will want to go and where parents will
feel comfortable sending them.
The majority of parents (72 percent) will only send their children to programs at safe,
local places where they are familiar with both the organization and staff (Share Our Strength,
2013). One incentive for program participation is to have activities that engage children at sites,
which allows staff to connect with children and build rapport—a high priority for parents (Share
Our Strength, 2013; A. Jeppesen, personal communication, October 30, 2015). The majority of
sponsors already offer activities at all or most of their sites (69 percent all, 14 percent most)
(Caldwell & Sims, 2015). These activities should also create an atmosphere that reduces the
stigma of being poor or needing food assistance, welcomes parents, and makes children want to
return. In other words, these activities should create a sense of community, rather than operating
simply as a feeding location (A. Jeppesen, personal communication, October 30, 2015). Still, no
matter how many incentives a site has for attendance, many children must find a way to safely
travel to summer meals sites, and food must be seamlessly available once children arrive.
METHODOLOGY
We developed three research questions in coordination with the Center for Best Practices.
Research Questions1. In what ways are state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and
sites building partnerships to overcome transportation barriers to summer meals
programs?
7
2. What practices are associated with promising partnerships between summer meals
sponsors and sites and state or local transit providers?
○ Signs of promising partnerships may include an increase in meals served at sites
involved in the transportation partnership or the achievement of other goals and
benchmarks that stakeholders set at the beginning of the partnership.
3. How can the No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices support summer meals
stakeholders such as state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors
and sites that are trying to overcome transportation barriers?
Given the relatively few communities that are implementing transportation solutions and
the early stages of these partnerships, we limit our findings to identifying practices associated
with promising partnerships. We recognize that we have drawn these practices based on
interview responses without longitudinal data on outcomes. Moreover, only a small number of
interviewees evaluate their partnerships in a formal way. Our findings point to practices that, at
this time, are perceived to address transportation barriers to summer meals. Additional research
is needed to measure the impact of these summer meals-transit partnerships and determine
whether more children are being served because of them.
Also important to note is that our study relied on interviews with entities involved in
providing summer meals, administering the program, and transporting meals or children to
summer meals sites. Our data does not reflect interviews with summer meals recipients due to
the limited time frame of our project and the sensitivities involved with interviewing program
recipients. Instead, we rely on summer meals sponsors who interact regularly with program
recipients to relay the transportation needs they are seeing in their programs and their perceptions
as to what solutions work best. Further research reflecting opinions of children and their parents
8
may provide additional insight to the transportation barriers impacting summer meals and
possible solutions. For now, our findings remain limited in that respect.
Data Methods
We relied on three methods to address the research questions: a literature review, semi-
structured phone interviews with five types of stakeholders, and a pre-interview questionnaire
distributed to select interviewees.
We compiled a standardized list of interview questions for five types of stakeholders: 1)
USDA and Department of Transportation (DOT) officials involved in administering the federal
summer meals program and federal transit programs, respectively; 2) state transit partners and
state summer meals administrators; 3) summer meals sponsors and sites; 4) local transit officials
providing transportation for summer meals in their communities; and 5) national, state, and local
advocacy organizations involved in supporting summer meals programs.2
The initial interviewee list came from Center for Best Practices suggestions and team
research. We used snowball sampling to identify additional interviewees, asking at the end of
each interview for suggestions of others involved in transportation partnerships whom we should
contact. We conducted 29 interviews with the five types of identified stakeholders (see Table 1).
Table 1. Number of Interviews by TypeType of Interviewee n
National USDA and DOT Representatives 6State Transit and State Administrators 5
Sponsors & Sites 8Local Transit Agencies 4
Advocacy Organizations 6Total Interviews 29
2 Though we had five stakeholder groups, our interview questions were divided into three main categories based on the themes we wanted to cover, with minor adjustments made depending on the interviewee: questions for sponsors and sites, questions for food-related agencies and advocacy groups, and questions for transportation agencies. See Appendix B for a full list of questions.
9
Of these 29 interviews conducted over a period of three weeks, 13 were with individuals
involved in transportation partnerships classified as either meals-to-sites or children-to-sites
partnerships. To ensure consistency, the team used standard language to request and conduct
interviews. Summer meals sponsors and sites received a pre-interview questionnaire to collect
background information such as the number of years they have been operating the summer meals
program and the number of meals they served in 2015 (Appendix A). The pre-interview
questionnaire allowed us to collect background information in advance to maximize the amount
of time spent in the interviews discussing transportation barriers and solutions.3
To systematically analyze interview responses, we completed a summary sheet for each
interview (Appendix C). Data from those summary sheets were synthesized using a template
allowing us to view responses by stakeholder group and identify key themes that answer the
research questions.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
We found that many sponsors and sites, as well as other stakeholders involved in the
summer meals program, have devised innovative solutions to address the transportation barrier to
summer meals. These local and state solutions often involve cross-sector collaboration and can
take the form of bringing meals to sites (so that a lack of food preparation or storage facilities no
longer hinders a sponsor from placing sites closer to children) or bringing children to sites (so
that a lack of safe and/or reliable transportation no longer hinders children from attending
3 To identify additional interviewees, we published a questionnaire in the November 2015 NKH newsletter. The few responses we received were irrelevant to our research questions and did not result in additional interviews.
10
summer meals programs in their community). Table 2 lists all the summer meals-transportation
partnerships we identified along with key characteristics of each one.
We first detail our findings on cross-sector collaboration as a fundamental underpinning
to promising transportation partnerships. Then we examine the meals-to-sites and children-to-
sites approaches in depth.
11
Table 2: Summer Meals-Transit Partnerships Identified through the Research Project
City/county, state Site location(s) Organizations involved Type of partnership Details, such as promising signs and challenges to date
1. Humboldt County, California Rural
Food for People (FFP), Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA), United Parcel Service (UPS)
Meals-to-sites
FFP staff packs 400 lunches in coolers, and the FFP driver delivers coolers to sites that are within a 20-mile radius of the food bank and to designated HTA and UPS stops. HTA and UPS drivers then pick up the coolers at their designated stops and deliver the meals to sites beyond the 20-mile radius. Interviewee said that one goal of the partnership is to enable FFP to add new sites and match or increase the number of meals served from the previous year. FFP opened three new sites in 2015, and with the addition of the new sites, the number of meals served increased by 7 percent.
2. Oklahoma RuralFeed the Children (FTC), various community groups
Meals-to-sites
FTC identifies community partners with refrigeration space that can serve as “hubs” and store food for several sites, or “spokes,” to pick up. FTC saw a 306 percent increase in the number of meals served between 2014 and 2015 (the first year of the Hub and Spoke model).
3. Cedar Rapids, Iowa UrbanHorizons, Neighborhood Transportation Service (NTS)
Meals-to-sites
Horizons prepares meals in its central kitchen, and NTS drivers pick up the meals and deliver them to Horizons’ 20. Horizons and NTS merged in 2015 (the second year of the partnership), which is the same year that Horizons served the highest number of meals (23,900). Interviewee said that one goal of the partnership is to prevent Horizons from needing to shift drivers away from its Meals on Wheels program, and it was able to accomplish this goal in 2015.
4. Rock Island, Illinois* Urban Church of Peace
Meals-to-sites
Children-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicle
Through the Church of Peace website, the team learned that the church uses volunteers to transport meals to sites across the county. Through the Illinois No Kid Hungry website, the team learned that the church provides transportation for children to reach its multiple sites. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites or how many meals are served.
5. Muscatine, Iowa** Urban MuscaBus Children-to-sites: fixed route
MuscaBus runs four fixed routes, which reach the schools, libraries, and other places that serve as summer meals sites. Children can ride for free in the summer. Free rides are advertised through school newsletters, radio and bus ads, and media coverage. MuscaBus lacks data on how many children
12
ride to summer meals sites.
6. Washington County, Vermont Rural
Washington County Hunger Council (convened by Hunger Free Vermont), Green Mountain Transit Agency (part of the Hunger Council)
Children-to-sites: fixed route
As part of annual discussions in the Hunger Council about summer meals programs, Green Mountain Transit Agency determines if there is adequate transportation to the sites and, if not, adjusts its fixed routes as needed. Unclear if children are able to ride for free; GMTA’s website indicates children can ride fixed routes at a reduced rate year-round. Interviewee did not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.
7. Topeka, Kansas* UrbanTopeka Metropolitan Transit Authority (TMTA)
Children-to-sites: fixed route
TMTA offers free rides to children on all fixed-route buses in the summer. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.
8. Huntsville, Alabama* Urban
Huntsville School District, City of Huntsville, Durham Services
Children-to-sites: fixed route and shared or purchased vehicles
City of Huntsville offers free bus passes for children to ride the fixed-route Huntsville Shuttle to summer meals sites. Bus passes are distributed through the schools and summer meal sites. The city also partners with community organizations to transport children to sites using Durham Services’ school buses. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.
9. Newton, Iowa Rural
Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA), Newton Community School District
Children-to-sites: demand response
HIRTA runs a demand-response route to transport groups of children from daytime activities at the Newton elementary school to lunch at the middle school, and then back. HIRTA provides the rides for free even though it does not have dedicated funding to do so.
10. Boone County, Iowa Rural
HIRTA, Boone Community School District, United Methodist Church, and United Way of Boone County
Children-to-sites: demand response
HIRTA builds demand-response routes to bring children to the Boone school site and the three United Methodist Church sites based off of requests from individual riders. The free transportation service is advertised through the school newsletters. HIRTA does not receive extra funding to provide transportation to the school site, and it uses funds from the United Way of Boone County to cover transportation to the church’s sites. In 2014, 1,024 one-way trips were provided to all four sites.
11. Effingham County, Illinois
Rural Effingham County Public Transportation (ECPT), School District Unit 40, Mission Summer: Fun (group of
Children-to-sites: demand response
ECPT provides demand-response service for individual riders to reach multiple sites in the county, once parents have signed a permission form for their children. Rides are provided for free because of funds raised by Mission: Summer Fun. Transportation is advertised through the school, radio, and
13
businesses, community organizations, and citizens)
newspapers. In 2015, ECPT added group demand-response service to transport children from a local daycare center to the summer meals site and back. Interviewee said that the goal of its partnership is to increase the number of children who can access summer meals. Number of one-way rides provided to summer meals increased from 172 in 2014 to 954 in 2015.
12. Brownfield, Texas RuralSpartan Transportation, Boys and Girls Club of Brownfield
Children-to-sites: demand response
Spartan Transportation provides demand-response service to bring a group of children from daytime activities at the Boys & Girls Club to a nearby summer meals site. Rides are provided for free even though Spartan does not have dedicated funding for the service. Spartan has asked the Boys & Girls Club to identify funding for 2016. In the first year (2015), Spartan provided 2,800 one-way rides for summer meals.
13. Nevada, Iowa Urban and rural
Nevada Community School District, United Way of Story County (UWSC), HIRTA
Children-to-sites: demand response and shared or purchased vehicle
HIRTA provides individual demand-response service to two sites (a Catholic Church and Central Elementary School) for children who live on the periphery of the school district. Nevada Community School District uses its school buses to pick up children who live inside the district’s boundaries. UWSC pays HIRTA so the rides can be offered to children for free. Transportation has been a part of the summer meals programs in Nevada since the sites were first established. In 2015, the Nevada and Ames sites (see below) served 3,063 meals.
14. Ames, Iowa Urban Ames Community School District
Children-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicle
The school district uses its school buses to bring children to an enrolled summer meals site at the middle school, where the United Way of Story County (UWSC) provides enrichment activities. The school district has to stop providing transportation in summer 2016 due to budget cuts, so UWSC is exploring other transit options.
15. Haysville, Kansas Urban USD 261 Haysville Schools
Children-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicle
USD 261 uses its school buses to bring children to three summer meals sites hosted at its schools. Children must be 8 years old to ride by themselves; children younger than 8 must be accompanied by an older sibling or parent. Number of meals served in 2015 increased by 17 percent, which the interviewee attributed in part to transportation and in part due to earlier advertising. Interviewee suspects that USD 261 runs the service at a loss because rides are provided for free.
16. Moscow, Kansas Rural USD 209 Moscow Children-to-sites: shared USD 209 provides meals during summer school and uses its
14
Schools or purchased vehicle
school buses to bring children to the site. Transportation stops when summer school ends, even though meals are still served, and the interviewee reported a steep drop in the number of meals served once the transportation stops.
17. Scott City, Kansas Rural
Compass Behavioral Health (CBH), First United Methodist Church of Scott City
Children-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicle
CBH sponsors a closed site at the First United Methodist Church for participants in its psychological rehabilitation summer program. To transport children to and from the program, CBH offers door-to-door service in its own vans. Medicaid reimbursement for the rehabilitation program helps cover transportation costs.
18. Montgomery County, Georgia Rural Montgomery County
SchoolsChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicle
Montgomery County Schools uses its school buses to transport children to and from summer meals. The school system pays for the transportation from its general fund and reports that it might not be able to run the buses in 2016 due to funding issues. Interviewee did not provide number of meals served.
19. Depoe Bay, Oregon* Rural Neighbors for Kids Children-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicle
Through the Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon website, the team learned that Neighbors for Kids used a grant in 2015 to purchase a van to bring children to its summer meals site. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to the site or how many meals are served.
20. Tulsa, Lawton, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Urban Feed the Children (FTC) Children-to-sites: shared
or purchased vehicleFTC matches community partners with extra vehicles and/or volunteer drivers to sites with transportation needs.
*Team was unable to interview someone directly associated with this partnership.**In 2011, MuscaBus engaged in a short-term, one-time partnership with the Muscatine Community School District to provide demand-response service from Franklin Elementary School (where the children were for activities) to Garfield Elementary School (where lunch was served) because road construction made it too dangerous for the children to walk between the schools.
15
Cross-Sector Collaboration for Local and State Solutions
Through our interviews, it is clear that the local and state context matters in addressing transportation
barriers to summer meals and that promising partnerships evolve through cross-sector collaboration. Transit
infrastructure varies from state to state (T. Craddock, personal communication, October 22, 2015) and from
urban to rural communities, making state and local solutions particularly necessary. Cross-sector collaboration
(CSC) “links the resources, activities, information, and capabilities of two or more sectors to achieve outcomes
that could not be achieved by one sector alone” (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006, p. 44). CSC is more likely to
succeed when certain elements exist, such as intentional stakeholder engagement, continuous trust-building,
agreement on vision, mission and goals, leaders who are champions and sponsors, and deliberate and emergent
planning (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006).
In our interviews, many of the elements outlined by Bryson, Crosby & Stone (2006) surfaced as key
practices for developing promising partnerships to address transportation barriers. Those CSC practices in the
summer meals context include:4
● Convene diverse decision-makers and engage existing contacts. Whether through a one-time regional
summer meals summit or through regular city, county, or regional meetings, it is important to bring
together diverse stakeholders who have authority to make decisions. Many of the individuals we
interviewed explained that the partnership unfolded easily and quickly because the right decision-makers
were in the room. Relying on existing relationships can be particularly helpful in smaller, tight-knit,
rural communities, which may experience even larger transportation barriers. In any partnership,
conveners should consider inviting nonprofits, public and private transit providers, schools, social
services agencies, houses of worship, community foundations and funders, and state and/or national
4 Because the key practices associated with CSC in the summer meals-transportation context were present throughout many of our interviews, we do not cite individual interviewees in these findings unless the contributions were unique.
16
agency representatives who can offer resources and share promising practices from other localities.
Communities should also gain input from parents about how they view the problem and their preferred
transportation solution. As one transit professional stated, “The ‘build a mode of transportation and they
will come’ mantra does not always hold true,” so partners should be mindful of community input.
● Articulate a clear vision about the goal of a potential partnership, and make it clear how
stakeholders can benefit. The benefit may be fulfillment of the vision that no child go hungry during
the summer, but we discovered that for transit providers, emphasizing the value of increasing ridership,
cultivating public transit users, reducing the stigma of using public transit, and generating broader
awareness of transportation services was helpful for gaining buy-in (see page 24 for further insights).
Additionally, it is important to provide data demonstrating the need and opportunity. When possible, it is
helpful to include a map showing the gaps in summer meals services so that transportation partners can
visualize the problem and opportunities (K. Banta, personal communication, October 21, 2015; K.
Davis, personal communication, November 3, 2015).
● Consider the assets that partners bring to the table and think creatively in formulating the plan.
There are many resources to map and consider as plans take shape, whether partners have volunteers
who might be able to pack lunches or drive vans, vehicles to loan, expertise in transit logistics, or
funding to cover fuel or other costs.
● Start small and build on success. The transportation barrier is a serious challenge that will not be
solved overnight. One interviewee reinforced that it takes three years for a transportation partnership to
mature (G. Lee, personal communication, October 28, 2015). Partners should consider that there are
incremental wins, such as providing one additional neighborhood with transit or opening one more site,
on the path to helping all eligible children access summer meals.
One example of a CSC valuable to summer meals is a Transit Advisory Group (TAG). TAGs are
comprised of business partners, human services groups, transit providers, and others who work to identify long-
term goals and solutions to transportation problems (B. Bartlett, personal communication, November 6, 2015). 17
TAGs can facilitate conversations between transit agencies and summer meals programs and get other local
agencies involved (J. Johnson-Miller, personal communication, October 23, 2015). As one transit partner said,
“If we can bring in the people who are working with these riders every day, that changes the conversation.”
TAGs are often convened by mobility managers, who are akin to case managers for transportation and
whose primary role is to act as conveners for stakeholders with an interest in transportation, such as state
agencies, advocacy organizations, nonprofit organizations, and transportation agencies (R. Opstelten, personal
communication, October 22, 2015). The practice of mobility management, with or without a TAG, can lead to
CSC that is highly useful for summer meals sponsors and sites (R. Opstelten, personal communication, October
22, 2015).
We also learned that national agencies and advocacy organizations can be helpful in supporting state and
local CSCs for summer meals transportation barriers through information sharing and building connections
among transportation providers, sponsors and sites, and other partners. For example, the DOT and USDA are
focused on finding and elevating examples of successful summer meals-transportation partnerships and
increasing awareness of Federal Transit Administration funding opportunities (T. Craddock, personal
communication, October 22, 2015). The DOT is also working with the National Center for Mobility
Management, an initiative of its United We Ride program, to create a summer meals resource aimed at mobility
managers (P. Friedman, personal communication, October 20, 2015). State agencies and advocacy groups say
that building connections is one of their primary roles, which they accomplish by reaching out to organizations,
managing distribution lists and email communications, organizing meetings to discuss transportation solutions,
or providing technical assistance to sites (K. Chanay, personal communication, November 6, 2015; S. Dross,
personal communication, October 30, 2015; G. Norman, personal communication October 20, 2015; P.
Friedman, personal communication, October 20, 2015).
18
Bringing Meals to Sites
From a supply perspective, areas must have an adequate number of sites in convenient locations for
children to access meals. However, many potential sites near children lack food preparation and storage
facilities, and many sponsors lack the capacity to deliver meals to sites that do not have such facilities. To
address these barriers and increase the supply of sites, communities are establishing transportation partnerships
to deliver meals to sites.5 Meals-to-sites solutions identified in this study include:6
● Packing meals in coolers and sending them on fixed-route buses, mail carrier trucks, or private delivery
trucks or vans, as do Food for People (FFP) in Humboldt County, California, and Horizons in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. Once the sites have received the food, summer meals program staff and volunteers unpack
the coolers and proceed with serving meals to the children in attendance. FFP created its meals-to-sites
partnership with the Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA) more than 15 years ago and began working
with United Parcel Service (UPS) in 2015 (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). To
ensure smooth transfer of meals, FFP communicates regularly with HTA, UPS, and its sites about the
procedures and allows sites only two strikes for missing a drop-off before they lose their site status (C.
Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). Horizons began working with a nonprofit
organization called Neighborhood Transportation Services (NTS) in 2014, and the two organizations
merged in 2015 (B. Siguenza, personal communication, October 29, 2015).
● Devising a “Hub and Spoke” model in which community partners with food storage space serve as the
“hub” for several sites, or “spokes,” that pick up meals from the hub and bring the meals to their site.
Feed the Children in Oklahoma (FTC) designed and employed this model in 2015, with five hubs
5 Mobile feeding is another solution that brings meals to children, but rather than bringing meals to sites, it can be thought of as a site on wheels (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mobile Feeding Model, n.d.). Because there is already a great deal of research and a practitioner's guide for those looking to adopt a mobile feeding model, our client requested that we not focus on mobile feeding for this project.6 According to its website, the Church of Peace in Rock Island, Illinois, uses volunteers to bring meals to sites (see #4 in Table 2). However, we lack information about this meals-to-sites solution since no interview was conducted.
19
serving a total of 25 spokes in the inaugural year (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5,
2015).
Our interviews suggest that meals-to-sites solutions are well suited for sponsors and sites in rural areas
and sponsors with a larger number of sites. In rural areas, the distance between sponsors and potential sites is
vast—for example, FFP has 21 sites spread across 200 miles (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21,
2015)—that it can be cost prohibitive to set up new sites without a meals-to-sites transportation partnership.
FTC deployed its Hub and Spoke model in rural areas for this reason and developed a different model for urban
and suburban areas (see “Bringing Children to Sites”) (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5,
2015). Granted, the Horizons and Church of Peace meals-to-sites solutions take place in urban areas, which
suggests that this solution can be applied beyond rural communities. Nonetheless, all of the sponsors involved
in meals-to-sites solutions, whether in rural or urban areas, have at least 20 sites,7 which suggests that meals-to-
sites solutions can help sponsors looking to increase the supply of sites without limiting themselves to places
with food preparation and storage facilities.
Practices Associated with Promising Partnerships for Bringing Meals to Sites
The meals-to-sites partnerships represent a small portion of our sample, and all but the FFP-HTA
partnership have existed for two years or less. Nonetheless, interviewees involved in these partnerships shared
preliminary lessons learned, from which we identified the following practices that are perceived to be associated
with promising meals-to-sites partnerships:
● Send chilled food with transit or delivery providers. In its first year of the Hub and Spoke model
(2015), FTC learned that cold meals presented fewer health department issues and were easier to
transport to sites (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015). FFP also packs cold
meals in coolers (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). More information about other
7 Horizons has 20 sites (B. Siguenza, personal communication, October 29, 2015). FFP has 21 sites (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). FTC has 25 sites served by the Hub and Spoke model, out of 58 sites total (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015). Church of Peace has 31 sites (Cook, 2015).
20
meals-to-sites partnerships is needed to confirm whether this practice is associated with promising
partnerships or is relevant only to the partnerships covered in this paper.
● Combine resources across organizations and sectors to achieve the same goal. FFP utilizes staff and
volunteers to pack the meals into coolers, deploys its one full-time driver to deliver the coolers to
designated HTA stops and UPS pickup stations, and relies on HTA and UPS to pick up the coolers and
deliver them to remote sites (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). In short, FFP
combines staff and volunteer resources across three organizations and three sectors (nonprofit, public,
and private) to achieve the same goal of delivering meals to sites—reinforcing many of the practices
discussed above with CSCs. The Hub and Spoke model also combines resources across organizations by
determining which community organizations can serve as hubs and matching the resources of those
organizations—namely, food storage space—with the sites in need.
● Clearly communicate procedures to every entity involved in the process. Clear communication is
key because meals-to-sites solutions involve a large number of sites and multiple steps (e.g., packing
meals, assigning drivers to specific pickup and drop-off points, and ensuring that drivers know when to
make their pickups and drop-offs and that sites know when to expect their drop-offs).
More research and evaluation is needed to determine whether these promising meals-to-sites
partnerships are ultimately successful and whether the practices we have identified above are associated with
that success. FFP does not formally evaluate its program and instead relies on verbal feedback from sites and
transportation partners (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). FTC sent out surveys to the
Hubs and Spokes at the end of Summer 2015 to evaluate the first year of the meals-to-sites model, but did not
share any of its results with us (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015).
Bringing Children to Sites
Our research indicates that solutions to bring children to sites generally follow one of three forms: fixed-
route transportation, demand-response, and shared or purchased vehicles. Table 3 describes each type of
21
solution. As Table 2 shows, summer meals stakeholders can also combine these types when creating a summer
meals-transportation partnership (see #8 and #13).
Table 3. Methods of Bringing Children to SitesMethod Description
Fixed-Route Service
What many riders consider when they think of public transit—a bus traveling a regular route with fixed stops and scheduled times that are consistent from day to day. Fixed-route service is more common in urban areas, where the population is concentrated enough to fill a bus that runs a regular route. Fixed-route solutions are often implemented through partnerships with local transit providers (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges, n.d.).
Demand-Response Service
Also referred to as “call-to-ride” programs, riders must request a ride (typically at least 24 hours in advance), and the transit provider builds a route each day in response to demand (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges, n.d.). Public transit in rural areas is typically demand-response service because the routes can be tailored to meet a specific demand across a wide geographic area. If a rider has a regular request, such as a weekly ride to a doctor’s appointment or a daily ride to a summer meals site, the transit provider can schedule that rider for regular pickup. In this way, demand-response service can mimic fixed route service, although the actual route traveled each day might differ depending on other rider requests along the way.
Shared or Purchased Vehicle
Utilizing vehicles that provide transportation to other programs such as redirecting a vehicle that an organization already owns (such as a school bus or passenger van), purchasing a new vehicle, or partnering with another community organization that is willing to lend one or more of its vehicles for transporting children to summer meals. Partners can include churches and community action agencies, which can either provide vehicles or volunteer drivers (Summer Food Service Program: Transportation, n.d.).
In addition to the overall goal of feeding children, both fixed-route and demand-response providers said
that they were motivated to become involved in bringing children to summer meals sites because it helps them:
1) counteract summer dips in ridership, which keeps formula funding levels steady and, in some cases, results in
funding increases if summer meals transportation leads to a net increase in total number of rides provided; 2)
cultivate children into lifelong transit users by reducing the stigma around public transit; and 3) enhance
awareness of their services within the broader community.8 Kari Banta, the program manager for the public
transportation division in the Texas Department of Transportation, suggested that local public transit providers
might be more receptive to summer meals-transportation partnership proposals if summer meals sponsors and
sites demonstrate that they understand this environment in which the providers operate (personal
communication, October 21, 2015).
8 These comments came up in nearly every interview with a transit provider, so we do not cite individual interviewees here.
22
Fixed-Route Service
We found four fixed-route solutions, three of which serve urban areas. These solutions include:9
● Letting children ride for free over the summer on fixed routes that already reach summer meals sites, as
do the transit partnerships in Muscatine, Iowa; Huntsville, Alabama; and Topeka, Kansas. Interviewees
described this solution as a win-win because it removes the cost and the transportation barrier for
children to access summer meals sites without requiring any extra resources from the transit side.
MuscaBus Transit Supervisor Kristy Korpi said her agency will run the fixed route no matter who rides
(or who pays), so if offering a free ride means that a child can access healthy food over the summer, then
MuscaBus is willing to do so (personal communication, November 5, 2015). MuscaBus does not track
how many children use its fixed routes to reach summer meals sites.
● Adjusting fixed routes for the summer so that they reach all summer meals sites, as does Green
Mountain Transit Authority (GMTA) in Washington County, Vermont. GMTA became involved in
summer meals through its membership in the Washington County Hunger Council, which Hunger Free
Vermont convenes (K. Davis, personal communication, November 3, 2015). GMTA uses a geographic
information system (GIS) map to visualize where the sites are located in relation to its fixed routes and
make adjustments as needed (K. Davis, personal communication, November 3, 2015). Davis did not
know whether children have to pay to ride the fixed routes in the summer, and the GMTA representative
on the Hunger Council did not return requests for interviews. Additionally, no data was available on any
changes in the number of meals served due to the transportation service.
One potential drawback of fixed-route solutions is that the routes are open to the public, which can
present safety concerns for parents (T. Craddock, personal communication, October 22, 2015). None of the
interviewees implementing fixed-route solutions discussed ways that they are addressing this concern, and it is
9 Another option for summer meals sponsors is to establish new sites along fixed routes (A. Jeppesen, personal communication, October 30, 2015), but that does not require a transportation partnership—it only requires that sponsors look at fixed routes before establishing new sites.
23
unknown whether the agencies involved in the two fixed-route partnerships we did not interview—Huntsville,
Alabama, and Topeka, Kansas—are addressing this concern. Thus, we identify this question of how to make
summer meals public transportation safer as an area for further research.
Demand-Response Service
We identified five demand-response solutions, all of which serve rural areas. These solutions include:
● Picking up individual riders along a door-to-door route that is built each day based on rider requests, as
do the partnerships in Boone, Iowa; Nevada, Iowa; and Effingham County, Iowa. Heart of Iowa
Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA), the transit provider in Boone and Nevada, collects children’s pickup
locations at the beginning of the summer so that it can build the route and assign drivers in advance,
although parents can change the pickup location if needed as long as the request is made with 24 hours’
notice (J. Kresse, personal communication, October 30, 2015; B. Ramsey, personal communication,
November 10, 2015). Jennifer Moore, mobility manager for Effingham County Public Transit (ECPT),
said ECPT also requires at least 24 hours’ notice for all requests and requires parents to sign a
permission form at the beginning of the summer to reduce ECPT’s liability (personal communication,
November 5, 2015).
● Picking up groups of students located in one place, as HIRTA does in Newton, Iowa, and Spartan
Transportation does in Brownfield, Texas. ECPT also added group demand-response service in 2015 to
bring children from a daycare center to a summer meals site and back, which resulted in a more than
five-fold jump in the number of rides provided that summer (J. Moore, personal communication,
November 5, 2015). Having the children in one place for group pickup makes demand-response service
more efficient (B. Baker, personal communication, November 6, 2015). In Texas, where Spartan
Transportation brought groups of children at the Boys & Girls Club to and from a summer meals site.
This demand-response route was technically open to the public and would have deviated if other riders
24
in the area had requested transportation, but Spartan Transportation received no such requests (B. Baker,
personal communication, November 6, 2015).
Although demand-response service is open to the public, parents utilizing these services tend to be less
concerned about safety as the driver is typically the same person every day, the number of riders is smaller, and
the riders themselves are often the same each day (J. Johnson-Miller, personal communication, October 23,
2015).
Shared or Purchased Vehicles
We found this transportation solution to be the most common children-to-sites partnership (10 out of 17
total children-to-sites partnerships). Shared or purchased vehicle solutions include:
● Using school buses to bring children to school-based summer meals sites, as do the school districts in
Huntsville, Alabama; Nevada, Iowa; Ames, Iowa; Haysville, Kansas; Moscow, Kansas; and
Montgomery County, Georgia. The school bus routes and rules for summer meals transportation are not
always identical to the routes and rules during the school year. For example, USD 261 Haysville Schools
in Kansas adjusts the bus stops, pick-up times, and drop-off times to more closely match where students
are coming from in the summer and the summer meals schedule (G. Lee, personal communication,
October 28, 2015). Also, because of liability concerns during the summer, when the day is less
structured, USD 261 requires that children must be at least 8 years old to ride by themselves (G. Lee,
personal communication, October 28, 2015). Gina Lee of USD 261 said some parents were surprised by
and unhappy with the age requirement for children riding alone, so she intends to communicate that rule
and the reasoning behind it more clearly in the future (personal communication, October 28, 2015).
● Using another vehicle owned by the summer meals sponsor or site, as do the partnerships in Scott City,
Kansas; Rock Island, Illinois; and Depoe Bay, Oregon. In Scott City, Compass Behavioral Health (the
summer meals sponsor) uses its own vehicle to transport children to its closed summer meals site (K.
Hill, personal communication, October 30, 2015). Little information is known about the Rock Island and
25
Depoe Bay partnerships beyond the fact that they use shared or purchased vehicles because our team
was unable to conduct interviews with those organizations in this project’s time frame.
● Relying on community partners to supply vehicles and/or volunteer drivers to bring children to summer
meals sites, as does Feed the Children (FTC) in Oklahoma. FTC surveys community organizations to
learn which ones have extra vehicles and/or volunteer drivers and then matches those community
organizations with summer meals sites that need transportation for children (C. McKnight, personal
communication, November 4, 2015). The community partners and sites sign memoranda of
understanding or other written agreements, and all volunteers undergo background checks before
becoming drivers (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 4, 2015).
Safety is less of a concern with shared or purchased vehicle solutions since the service provided on those
vehicles is dedicated specifically to the sites that serve summer meals. However, organizations involved in these
partnerships still try to minimize liability and maximize safety by requiring children under a certain age to be
accompanied by a parent or older sibling (as USD 261 does) or requiring volunteer drivers to undergo training
(as do FTC and Compass Behavioral Health).
Practices Associated with Promising Partnerships for Bringing Children to Sites
While we explored a variety of models for transporting children to sites, fixed-route partnerships and
demand-response services that transport groups of children appear to be the most cost effective and scalable
solutions since they rely on existing transit infrastructure. Shared or purchased vehicle partnerships can be
helpful for organizations that have available vehicles or for communities with less public transit infrastructure
and partners willing to loan vehicles. We advise caution in offering purely individual demand-response service,
which would require more resources to plan and more advertising in order to produce enough individual
requests to justify a demand-response route. Nonetheless, some communities have found individual demand-
response service to be promising, reinforcing again that the local context matters in designing a solution.
26
Based on common themes heard in interviews with organizations involved in 17 different children-to-
sites partnerships, we identified the following practices that are perceived to be associated with promising
children-to-sites partnerships, regardless of the type of solution:
● Provide free or significantly reduced-price rides to children. The fact that transit providers and
summer meals sponsors and sites are going to great lengths to provide free or reduced-price rides—such
as operating at a loss, dipping into general funds, or creating a new coalition of community groups to
fundraise for the free service (see #9–15 and #18 in Table 2)—suggests that reducing the cost barrier for
lower income children to take transportation is a key practice. To confirm whether this practice is
associated with a promising children-to-sites partnership, more research is needed on whether changes in
the price of summer meals transportation impact the number of rides provided and number of meals
served. In the meantime, though, summer meals stakeholders looking to replicate this practice should
heed caution from the details provided in Table 2 and in the findings above: while fixed-route providers
do not appear to be struggling with the cost burden of letting children ride for free (since they are
running those routes regardless of whether a rider is paying), summer meals programs using demand-
response and shared or purchased vehicle solutions report serious funding challenges.
● Advertise transportation services directly to children and parents through schools. Schools
represent the strongest connecting points to children and parents, and most of the organizations involved
in children-to-site partnerships indicated that they advertise their summer meals transportation services
through school newsletters for that reason. Organizations also utilize bus and radio advertisements and
local newspaper coverage, so more research is needed to clarify which forms of advertising are most
effective. Nonetheless, interviewees still perceive that school-based advertising is essential, and the
repetition of this perception across interviews suggests that it is an important practice.
● Build risk management strategies into the transportation solution. Transporting children will always
involve safety and liability concerns, but summer meals programs can minimize these concerns through
risk management strategies. Examples of such strategies include screening and training drivers (see FTC 27
and Compass Behavioral Health), requiring parental permission forms for all children (see ECPT) and
chaperones for younger children (see USD 261), and clearly communicating the safety precautions to
parents (see USD 261). More research is needed to confirm whether more or stronger risk management
strategies are associated with greater utilization of summer meals transportation services.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our findings and our analysis of practices for promising transportation partnerships, we advise
the NKH Center for Best Practices to follow these five recommendations to support summer meals stakeholders
in their efforts to overcome transportation barriers. Recommendations #1–3 address what NKH should do with
the findings and analysis presented here, while recommendations #4 and #5 address future research that NKH
should conduct.
1. Bring transportation barriers to the foreground in all summer meals resources. NKH should
incorporate information about transportation barriers—e.g., what the common barriers are, general
information about using cross-sectoral collaborations to solve them, and where to find more advice for
addressing transportation barriers (see recommendation #2 below)—into all of its existing and future
NKH resources for summer meals stakeholders, including toolkits and presentations at its annual
National Summer Meals Summit. Doing so will ensure that summer meals stakeholders begin thinking
about addressing transportation barriers early on.
2. Create a toolkit to guide summer meals sponsors and sites in addressing transportation barriers.
This toolkit should draw on the above findings and future NKH research (see recommendations #4 and
#5 below) to suggest steps that sponsors and sites can take to establish, execute, and sustain summer
meals-transportation partnerships. Appendix E provides a list of preliminary recommendations for
sponsors and sites that can be incorporated into this toolkit, pending further research. Based on the
research provided in this study, the toolkit should highlight the importance of: 1) connecting with
28
community stakeholders to establish partnerships at the local level; 2) identifying the transportation need
and articulating to potential partners a vision to address that need; 3) advertising summer meals
transportation services through schools once a partnership has been established; and 4) being persistent
and proactive about sustaining the partnership through regular communication with partners, program
evaluations, and continual searches for additional funding opportunities. (See Appendix E for more
details.)
3. Share the findings and analysis presented here with state summer meals administrators, state
transit agencies, and local transit providers. Since this research identifies ways that state agencies and
local transit providers can facilitate and establish summer meals-transportation partnerships
(respectively), NKH should share our findings and analysis with these stakeholders. Appendix E distills
the findings and analysis into specific recommendations for state agencies (both state summer meals
administrators and state transit agencies) and local transit providers to make sharing this information
easier for NKH. As Appendix E details, state agencies should facilitate connections between potential
partners in local communities and champion the need for additional funding sources while local transit
providers should connect with their local summer meals counterparts and request funding as soon as
possible. Additionally, NKH can share the state agency and local transit provider recommendations with
the DOT and USDA, who can determine other ways to disseminate these recommendations to the
intended audiences.
4. Future research: Collect more information about the ways state agencies, local transit providers,
and summer meals sponsors and sites are building partnerships to overcome transportation
barriers and the practices associated with promising partnerships. This study resulted in a number
of leads that we were unable to interview due to our limited time frame. We recommend that NKH
interview these leads and identify other sources through questionnaires and existing networks of summer
meals sponsors and sites (see Appendix D for a list of leads). When interviewing people involved with
partnerships that utilize public transit to bring children to sites (either fixed route or demand response), 29
we recommend that NKH ask specifically about how partners are making public transit safer for
children, since none of our interviewees involved in public transit identified what they are doing in this
area.
5. Future research: Conduct evaluations of transportation partnerships to confirm the practices that
we have identified as being associated with promising partnerships and identify others. As
explained above, our findings and analysis rely mostly on interviewees’ perceptions of the practices
associated with promising partnerships since formal evaluations of these partnerships are rare. NKH can
fill this gap by conducting evaluations of summer meals-transportation partnerships throughout the
country, beginning with a manageable subsample of the partnerships identified in this paper.10 NKH can
then use the evaluation findings to enhance the information provided in the toolkit (see recommendation
#2 above). When designing the evaluations, we recommend that NKH focus on:
a. Measuring the impact of these transportation partnerships and determining whether more
children are able to access summer meals because of them
b. Assessing whether more or stronger risk management strategies are associated with greater
utilization of summer meals transportation services
c. Clarifying which forms of advertising (school-based, media coverage, or bus ads) are associated
with greater use of summer meals transportation services
d. Confirming whether changes in the price of summer meals transportation affects the numbers of
rides taken and meals served at sites reached by the transportation.
CONCLUSION
Transportation is clearly a pressing issue that needs to be addressed in order to increase access to
summer meals and ultimately reduce food insecurity among children. The good news is that communities are
10 We defer to NKH to determine what is a “manageable” subsample based on their staff capacity. If NKH staff capacity is limited, recommendation #5 could be contracted out to a consulting firm or another graduate student research team.
30
pursuing cross-sector collaborations to address the transportation barrier and several partnership models exist
that could increase access to summer meals. We have identified promising models and associated practices,
including bringing meals to sites by sending coolers on fixed-route transportation or adopting a hub-and-spoke
model and bringing children to sites through fixed-route, demand-response, or shared and purchased vehicles
partnerships. Although our research is limited by the lack of longitudinal data on outcomes, we hope that the
Share Our Strength No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices will use this research as a starting point to better
understand what types of partnerships currently exist and to help sponsors, sites, and transit agencies create
partnerships that are ultimately successful in increasing utilization of summer meals programs.
31
REFERENCES
Aussenberg, R. A. (2014). School meals programs and other USDA child nutrition programs: A
primer (CRS Report No. R43783). Retrieved from the National Agricultural Law Center:
http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43783.pdf.
Bryson, J., Crosby, B., and Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector
collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55.
Caldwell, K., & Sims, K. (2015). Summer nutrition insights: 2014 national summer meals
sponsor survey findings. Share Our Strength. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from
http://www.summermealssurvey.com/.
Coleman-Jansen, A., Rabbitt, M. P., Gregory, C., & Singh, A. (2015). Household Food Security
in the United States in 2014 (Report No. ERR-194). U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1896841/err194.pdf.
Cook, L. (2015, July 16). Summer food program serves thousands of Q-C kids. Quad-City
Times. Retrieved
November 28, 2015, from http://qctimes.com/news/local/summer-food-program-serves-
thousands-of-q-c-kids/article_4c0bd494-23ac-531a-836a-ef3dc3492361.html.
32
Endahl, J., & Singh. A. (2004). Evaluation of the 14 state Summer Food Service Program pilot
project (Report No. CN-04-SFSP14). Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series.
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of
Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Retrieved from
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps100598/www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/
CNP/FILES/SFSPPilot.pdf.
Food insecurity in the United States. (2010). Congressional Digest, 89(10), 301-306.
Gordon, A. & Briefel, R. (2003). Feeding low-income children when school is out - the Summer
Food Service Program; Executive Summary (Report No. E-FAN-03-001). U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23517017_Feeding_Low-
Income_Children_When_School_Is_Out_-
_The_Summer_Food_Service_Program_Executive_Summary
Gundersen, C. & Ziliak, J. P. (2014). Childhood food insecurity in the U.S.: Trends, causes, and
policy options. The Future of Children, 24(2), 1-19. doi: 10.1353/foc.2014.0007.
Harvard Family Research Project (2004). Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time
evaluation. (Issue Brief No. 6). Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from
http://www.hfrp.org/content/download/1098/48603/file/issuebrief6. pdf .
33
Molaison, E. F. & Carr, D. H. (2005). Overcoming barriers to participation in the Summer Food
Service Program - An identification of best practice solutions. National Food Service
Management Institute, University of Mississippi. Retrieved from
http://www.nfsmi.org/documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20090901042814.pdf.
Nord, M., & Romig, K. (2006). Hunger in the summer: Seasonal food insecurity & the national
school lunch & summer food service programs. Journal of Children & Poverty, 12(2),
141-158. doi:10.1080/10796120600879582.
Orovecz, K., Pincus, E., Todd, N., & Welch, M. (2015). Summer nutrition program social
impact analysis. Deloitte & Share Our Strength. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from
http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/summer-meals/summer-nutrition-program-social-
impact-analysis.
Share Our Strength. (2013). Share Our Strength Summer Meals Survey Full Report. APCO
Insight & Share Our Strength. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/summer-meals/summer-meals-survey-findings
Summer Food Service Program: Average Daily Attendance. (2015). In U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/04sffypart.pdf.
34
Summer Food Service Program Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). In U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/frequently-asked-questions-faqs.
Summer Food Service Program: Transportation. (n.d.). In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service. Retrieved October, 1, 2015, from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/transportation.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges [Toolkit].
Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/SMT-
Transportation.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Mobile Feeding Model [Toolkit]. Retrieved October 1,
2015, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/SMT-Mobile_Feeding.pdf.
35
APPENDIX
Appendix A Pre-Interview Questionnaire
Appendix B List of Interview Questions
Appendix C Interview Summary Sheet
Appendix D Interview List of Contacts
Appendix E Recommendations for NKH Stakeholders
Client Liaison: Kim Caldwell, Senior Program [email protected], 202-478-6524
36
Appendix A
Pre-Interview Questionnaire
Thank you for providing your time and perspective to the GW graduate student team that is assisting the NKH Center for Best Practices in researching the ways that state and local agencies, sponsors, and sites are addressing transportation barriers in summer meals programs. Your answers in the forthcoming interview will help the team develop recommendations and promising practices for NKH summer meals program stakeholders that want to address transportation barriers in their community.
The purpose of this pre-interview questionnaire is to collect basic background information about your summer meals program to inform the subsequent interview. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the member of the GW student team who has arranged your interview. The GW Team will respect ethical parameters set by GW’s Institutional Review Board’s training for conducting social and behavioral research.
Basic Info1. Your Organization2. Your Name and Title3. Your role in the summer meals program in your community (e.g. Do you complete and submit the paperwork for summer
meals reimbursement? Do you implement programming at a site? etc.)4. Number of years in that role (If less than one year, please give the number of months)
Your Summer Meals Program1. How long has your organization been implementing the summer meals program?2. How many meals did you serve in summer 2015? How does this number compare to the number of meals served in 2014 or
in previous years?3. If you are a sponsor, how many sites do you have? (If you are not a sponsor, leave blank)4. If you are a site, what is the structure of your program? (e.g.: Do you provide other activities along with meals? Do you
operate out of a place of worship or a recreation center? Do you provide meals for parents and children?)5. How many employees does your organization have, and how many of them are dedicated to the summer meals program? For
the employees who are dedicated to the summer meals program, is it their main, full-time role, or only a part of their job?6. Tell us about the geographic location you serve: Is it urban, suburban, or rural? What are the key demographics of the area or
the population you serve?
Thank you for helping us!1. Are there additional people or programs you know of whom you think we should talk to?2. If there is anything you think would be useful for us to know before the interview, please feel free to tell us here.
37
Appendix B
Interview Questions
SCRIPT TO READ AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY INTERVIEWThank you for providing your time and perspective to our graduate student team that is assisting the No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices in researching the ways that state and local agencies, sponsors, and sites are addressing transportation barriers in summer meals programs. We are conducting many interviews like this one through the first week in November. Then we will be synthesizing our results and delivering our final recommendation to the Center for Best Practices in December. Your answers in this interview will help our team develop recommendations and promising practices for summer meals program stakeholders that want to address transportation barriers in their community. As required by GW, this graduate student team will respect ethical parameters set by GW’s Institutional Review Board’s training for conducting social and behavioral research. Do you have any questions before we begin?
SCRIPT TO READ AT THE END OF EVERY INTERVIEWThank you again for taking the time to speak with me as part of the graduate student project for the No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices. Do you have any materials or resources you would like to share with us that would be helpful for identifying promising practices? (IF YES: Is it OK with you if we include these materials as appendices in our final report, if relevant?) What is the best way for me to be in touch if I have any clarifying or follow-up questions?
Questions to Ask All Interviewees1. How do you define success when it comes to the summer meals program?2. How do you define success in terms of summer meals-transit partnerships??3. [at the end] Anything else you’d like to add?4. [in intro email and at end] Can you refer to us to other people/organizations/partners whom you think we should talk to?
Questions for Sponsors & SitesTransportation Partnership Overview
1. Tell us about your partnership that allows you to address the transportation barrier.a. Who are your partners? How formal is this partnership? Do you have an MOU or contract? When was the
partnership created?b. What factors or situations on the ground made you decide to address the transportation barrier, and why were you
compelled to address it?2. How did you decide to pursue this particular form of partnership?
Creating the partnership1. Tell us about how you went about forming this partnership.
a. Who did you reach out to? Did others help you make this connection?b. What initial steps did you take to form this partnership?
2. Once the partnership was formed, how did you implement it? About how long did it take from start (deciding to go this path) to finish (delivering the first meal or child to a site)?
3. What barriers did you encounter along the way, and how did you overcome them?Evaluating the partnership
1. What were the results of the partnership?a. Did you see any increases in meals served or financial stability of the sites?b. Do you evaluate your program in any way?c. Do you have any formal or informal feedback from children/parents regarding their experiences accessing summer
meals through the partnership?2. Would you describe this partnership as successful? Why or why not?
a. IF YES: What elements do you think were key to your success?b. IF NO: What elements do you think contributed to the lack of success? In hindsight, how might you have done
things differently to achieve success?3. Are you planning to pursue this partnership again in summer 2016? Why or why not?
a. IF YES: What changes, if any, are you planning to make to the program?b. IF NO: Are you still in communication with that transit partner? Do you think you would try to pursue this
partnership in the future, or other solutions to the transportation barrier? What would need to be in place for you to try this again?
4. If you were giving advice to other summer meals program sponsors or sites about how to pursue this partnership to address the transportation barrier, what would you say to them?
38
Questions for USDA-FNS, State Agencies that Administer Summer Meals Program, and Advocacy Groups11
Roles and Big Picture1. Tell us a little more about your role executing/administering/supporting the summer meals program.2. Are there other national/state agencies you work with to execute/administer/support the summer meals program? Which ones,
and how do you work with them? 3. In your opinion, what is working best with the summer meals program (in your state)? 4. What are the greatest challenges for the summer meals program (in your state)?
Deeper dive on Transportation Barriers & Solutions1. How do you define the transportation problem for the summer meals program? Are there any states or regions where the
transportation problems are particularly severe?2. At what level do you think the transportation barrier is best resolved? (local solutions, state partnerships, national
partnerships - all of the above)? What role for each?3. Based on your experience and knowledge of successful models, how do you think transportation barriers are best addressed?4. What is USDA-FNS/your agency/your organization doing to address the problem?
State and local transit partnerships 1. To your knowledge, what states/regions are doing a good job addressing transportation barriers in summer meals through
partnerships? Tell me about those partnerships. a. If they have concrete information: Refer to Sponsors/Site interview questionsb. If relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative?
2. Are you familiar with any states/regions that have tried to address transportation barriers through partnerships and been unsuccessful? If yes, what happened?
a. If relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative? 3. Based on what you know of these transit partnerships, what promising practices come to mind that are themes for successful
partnerships? 4. Are there clear take-aways about what doesn’t work? What are they? 5. If you were giving advice to summer meals program sponsors or sites about how to pursue partnerships to address the
transportation barrier, what would you say to them?
Questions for DOT, State Transit Agencies, and Local Transit Providers12
Overview on Agency, Structure, and Partnership Role1. Tell me a little about your agency/department’s mission and responsibilities?2. How do you work to support state DOTs? What are the state DOTs’ chief charges? 3. How does your agency/department currently work with USDA and summer meals?
Strategies and resources to address transportation barriers1. Tell us about your approach to mobility management. 2. How does your department help address transportation barriers to public programs, and in what ways is that different for
programs that involve transporting children?3. What strategies have you seen effective for reducing transportation barriers to public programs? What about specifically for
summer meals or other children’s programs? 4. What resources are available to state and local partners to address transportation barriers? Which do you think are most
relevant for the summer meals program?State and Regional Transit Partnerships
1. To your knowledge, what states/regions are doing a good job addressing transportation barriers (with “mobility management”) to public programs/summer meals through transit partnerships? Tell me about those partnerships.
a. If they have concrete information: Refer to Sponsors/Site interview questionsb. If relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative?
2. Are you familiar with any states/regions that have tried to address transportation barriers to public programs/summer meals through transit partnerships and been unsuccessful? If yes, what happened?
a. If relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative?3. Based on what you know of these transit partnerships, what promising practices come to mind that are themes for successful
partnerships? 4. Are there clear take-aways about what doesn’t work? What are they? 5. What first steps might you recommend for beginning a transit partnership?
11 Questions for these three interviewee groups were largely similar; the main difference was asking USDA-FNS staff and national advocacy groups about their knowledge of transportation barriers and partnerships nationwide while asking state agencies that administer summer meals and state advocacy groups about their state only.12 Questions for these interviewee groups were largely similar; the main difference was asking DOT staff about their knowledge of transportation barriers and partnerships nationwide while asking state transit agencies and local transit providers about their state only.
39
Appendix C
Interview Summary Sheet
Contact Name and Title: Interviewer Name:Organization: Date of Interview:City, State: Email:Scope and Type of Organization:(Scope: National, State, Local)(Type: Sponsor, Site, Administrator, Advocacy Organization, Transit Partner, Other - Please Describe)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. How would you describe the overall relevance of the interview? Did the contact provide little, moderate, or a lot of helpful detail? 2. What were the main issues/themes that struck you with this contact?3. Summarize the information you received (or did not receive) on the following:
Definition of Success for Summer Meals
Definition of Success for Summer Meals Transportation Partnerships
How Contact is Addressing Summer Meals Transportation Barriers
Steps Taken to Create Summer Meals-Transportation Partnerships
Lessons Learned in Summer Meals / Summer Meals-Transportation Partnerships
Advice for Organizations Seeking to Address Transportation Barriers
Resources Shared
Suggested Follow-Up Contacts
Notable Quotes from Contact
4. Anything else that struck you as salient, interesting, illuminating, or important with this contact? 5. Are there any implications for our research questions, methods, or interviews moving forward?
40
Appendix D
Interview List of Contacts
Interview ContactsOrganization Contact Name Title City, State Scope & Type of OrganizationNational USDA & DoT Representatives
DoT & USDA FNS
Rik Opstelten United We Ride Program Analyst, DOT
Washington, DC Federal agenciesTony Craddock, Jr. Program Assistant, USDA FNS
Pam Phillips Chief of Partnerships/Communications Officer, USDA FNS
National Center for Mobility Management Pamela Friedman Senior Program Specialist Washington, DC National technical assistance provider
FNS, Mountain Plains Regional Office (MPRO)
Melissa Magee Community Nutrition Program Team LeadEvergreen, CO Federal agency, regional office
Tandy Jones Program Specialist, USDA FNS, MPROState Transit & Administrators
Iowa DoT Jeremy Johnson-Miller
Transit Programs Administrator/Statewide Mobility Coordinator Des Moines, IA State agency
Bureau of Nutrition and Health Services, Iowa Department of Education
Stephanie Dross
FFVP & SFSP Education Program Consultant Des Moines, IA State administrator
Texas DoT, Public Transportation Division Kari Banta Program Manager Austin, TX State agency
Kansas Department of Education Kelly Chanay Assistant Director, Child Nutrition & Wellness Topeka, KS State administrator
IA Regional Transit Authority Bridget Bartlett Mobility Coordinator Dubuque, IA State/regional transit provider
Sponsors & Sites
United Way of Story County Jean Kresse President and CEO Ames, IA Children-to-sites; demand response and shared or purchased vehicle; urban and rural
Compass Behavioral Health Kent Hill Regional Director Scott City, KS Children-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor with 1 site, rural
USD 209, Moscow, KS Public Schools Stu Moore Superintendent/PK-5 Principal Moscow, KS Children-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor with 1 site, rural
USD 261 Haysville Schools Gina Lee Food Service Director Haysville, KS Children-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor with 3 sites, urban
41
Montgomery County Schools Catherine Parten Dir. of School Food & Nutrition Montgomery,
GAChildren-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor, rural
Harvesters (A Feeding America Food Bank)
Angela Jeppesen Program Manager Kansas City, MO Sponsor with 73 sites across urban, suburban, and
rural areas
Horizons, A Family Service Alliance Brian Seguenza Client Services Coordinator Cedar rapids, IA Meals-to-sites; Sponsor with 20 sites, urban
Food for People, Inc. (FFP) Carrie Smith Child Nutrition Programs Coordinator Humboldt, CA Meals-to-sites; Sponsor with 21 sites, ruralLocal Transit
MuscaBus Kristy Korpi Transit Supervisor Muscatine, IA Children-to-sites; Fixed Route; Local public transit agency, urban
Effingham County Public Transportation/Central Illinois Public Transit
Jennifer Moore Mobility Manager Effingham County, IL
Children-to-sites; Demand-Response; Local public transit agency, rural
Spartan Transportation Brian Baker Director Levelland, TX Children-to-sites; Demand-Response; Local public transit agency, rural
Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA)
Brooke Ramsey Operations Manager Urbandale, IA Children-to-sites; Demand-Response; Local public
transit agency, ruralAdvocacy OrganizationsD.C. Hunger Solutions Melissa Roark Americorps VISTA Washington, DC Local advocacy organization
Hunger Free Vermont Katy Davis Nutrition Education & Outreach Manager South Burlington, VT
State advocacy organization that convenes the Washington County Hunger Council
Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice
Rebekah Gaston Director, Childhood Hunger Initiative Topeka, KS State advocacy organization
Texas Hunger Initiative (THI) Grace Norman THI-Lubbock Regional Director/Child Hunger Outreach Specialist Brownsville, TX State advocacy organization
Food Research Action Center (FRAC) Signe Anderson Senior Child Nutrition Policy Analyst Washington, DC National advocacy organization
Feed the Children (FTC) Clint McKnight Domestic Programming Manager Oklahoma
Meals-to-sites in rural and children-to-sites in urban; shared or purchased vehicle; National advocacy organization
Interview LeadsOrganization Contact Name Title City, State Scope & Type of OrganizationHuntsville School District, City of Huntsville, Durham Services Scott Gillies Transportation Coordinator Huntsville, AL Children-to-sites; fixed route and shared or purchased
vehicles, urban
Church of Peace Kevin Carney Outreach Director and Communication Coordinator Rock Island, IL Sponsor with 31 sites; Meals-to-sites and children-to-
sites; shared or purchased vehicle, urbanNeighbors for Kids Toby Winn Executive Director Depoe Bay, OR Site; Children-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle,
42
ruralTopeka Metropolitan Transit Authority (TMTA) Denise Ensley Chief Operations Officer Topeka, KS Children-to-sites; fixed route; Local transit agency,
urbanFood Bank for the Heartland Michelle Sause Child Hunger Program Manager Omaha, NE Meals-to-sites
43
Appendix E
Recommendations for Summer Meals Stakeholders
Based on our findings and analysis of practices that appear to be associated with promising transit partnerships, the following are recommendations for state transit agencies, state agencies that administer the summer meals program, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites.13
One key recommendation for all stakeholders is to keep communication open in order to share information and work collaboratively. The table below outlines how state agencies, transit agencies, and sponsors and sites can keep communication open by recommending that the stakeholders in the first column reach out to the stakeholders going across the table.
Recommendations for State SFSP Administrators and State Transit Agencies1. Champion additional federal and state funding that local transit providers can use for summer meals-transportation
partnerships. Because funding is an ongoing challenge for summer meals-transportation partnerships, state agencies can champion new state funding sources for these partnerships or increased funding levels for existing state grant programs that can support these partnerships. In addition, some state agencies can appeal to their contacts at the federal level to allocate more funding for summer meals-transportation partnerships or adjust grant criteria so that more funds can be used toward these partnerships.
Recommendations Specific to State Transit Agencies1. Signal to local transit agencies that the state transit agency endorses their involvement in summer meals-transportation
partnerships. By educating local transit agencies about the transportation needs in summer meals program or lifting up examples of successful partnerships, for example, the state transportation agency can signal to local transit agencies the importance of summer meals. This signaling can be done at statewide or regional conferences for local transit agencies, in webinars or group email communications, or one-on-one conversations between a state department of transportation and its local agencies.
2. Encourage formation of transit advisory groups (TAGs). In addition to connecting local transit providers with their summer meals counterparts, state agencies can encourage those connections to happen by encouraging the formation of transit advisory groups, or TAGs.
Recommendations Specific to State Agencies that Administer Summer Meals Programs1. Additional information for communications recommendations:
a. Develop regular communication with sponsors and sites statewide. These administrators, who ensure compliance with SFSP program standards, should connect sponsors and sites so they can share ideas and lessons learned and foster the connections that this study reveals are key to addressing barriers. Communication should be two-way: not solely newsletter blasts from the top-down, but also bottom-up information sharing.
b. Connect with advocacy groups. Advocacy groups often have resources and the capacity to help identify gaps in service and propose solutions.
Recommendations for Local Transit Providers1. Engage with the community to promote available transportation services. Interactions with social service agencies and
schools enable local transit agencies to explain their services so that summer meals stakeholders can better understand how a local transit provider can help. Once a summer meals-transportation partnership has been set up, being present at community events, such as summer meals kickoffs or school fairs, is one of the best ways for local transit providers to promote the service and ensure it will be utilized.
2. Request funding from city agencies and nonprofit organizations as early as possible. Once the basic framework of a summer meals-transportation partnership has been developed, local transit providers can talk to the city council and mayor, local United Ways, or other local funders for funding. If a transit provider is not a 501c3 nonprofit organization and has trouble applying for a grant, they can ask a partner nonprofit to serve as fiscal agent.
3. Develop a transit advisory group (TAG) to bring together local social service agencies and community organizations. TAGs help local transit providers assess transportation needs in various community programs and adjust local transit services to meet those needs when feasible. TAGs also provide a forum for key stakeholders to form relationships with each other for
13 While not the explicit focus of our research, we recognize the value that national agencies and advocacy groups bring to support summer meals-transportation partnership and see pivotal roles for both groups in continuing to connect state administrators, state transit agencies, and sponsors and sites to information, potential partners, and resources, and promising practices.
44
ongoing partnership. When assembling a TAG, it’s important to convene those who are authorized to make decisions on behalf of their agency or organization.
Recommendations for Summer Meals Sponsors and Sites1. Additional information for communications recommendation: Connect with community stakeholders.
● Sponsors should also reach out to their state summer meals administrators for recommendations of potential partners and successful transportation models.
● To connect with transit providers, sponsors and sites should look for community meetings that local transit providers or human services are hosting and talk to city council members to seek contacts. When talking with transit providers, sponsors should position a potential summer meals partnership as a tool for transit agencies to increase ridership, reduce stigma, and cultivate new lifelong users of public transit.
● Sponsors and sites should engage with a broad group of stakeholders including hunger advocacy groups, human service nonprofits and agencies, TAGs, United Ways, city council, the local school district, transit authority, and parents to think collaboratively about transportation partnerships.
2. Determine the transportation needs and develop a vision. In order to develop a clear vision of the need and opportunity for a transportation partnership, sponsors and sites should: ● Consider their capacity to bring meals to sites or children to sites to help identify type of transportation support that is
needed.○ If the type of transportation need identified is bring children to sites: survey program participants to learn more
about their needs and which solutions they would be likely to utilize.● Consider potential transit resources that may already be in place, such as school buses, public transportation services, private
transportation services, and community groups with access to vans or buses.● Research potential funding streams that can help sustain a partnership● Be prepared to demonstrate how a summer meals-transportation partnership ultimately supports individual stakeholders and
the community at-large.
3. Advertise a summer meals-transportation partnership to schools, parents, and key stakeholders to maximize use of transit opportunities. Like any transportation service, summer meals transportation services must be well advertised in order to be utilized. Advertisements for summer meals transportation services also have a side effect of helping public transit agencies enhance their public image and promote their services in the broader community.
4. Be persistent and proactive about establishing and sustaining a summer meals-transportation partnership. Because any partnership will encounter unexpected challenges and barriers, it is important for sponsors and sites to be proactive about sustaining these partnerships if problems arise. To do this, summer meals programs can:● Have a communication plan in place and be responsive to transit partners during unplanned setbacks. ● Gather feedback and conduct evaluations with transit partners to help strengthen and extend the partnership.● Continue to seek funding opportunities to bolster the summer meals-transportation partnership. Consider reading out to
private donors in the local community and applying for grants from federal and state agencies, local corporations and foundations, the local United Way, city council, and nonprofit organizations.
45
Communications MatrixThe stakeholders in the first column should reach out to the stakeholders going across the table.
State transit agencies
State summer meals
administrators
Local transit agencies Sponsors & sites
Advocacy groups & other
stakeholders
All state agencies
Share information, facilitate summer meals-transit partnerships statewide, and champion additional federal and state funding that local transit providers can use for summer meals-transportation partnerships
Facilitate connections between local transit and sponsors/sites by providing contact information and connecting both parties with each other
State transit agencies see above
Educate local transit about the transportation needs for summer meals
Approach sponsors/sites about their transportation needs
State SFSP administrators see above
Connect sponsors/sites with other sponsors/sites to share ideas for solving transportation barrier
Tap advocacy groups to help identify gaps in service and propose solutions
Local transit agencies
Reach out to summer meals administrators to find the key summer meals contacts in their community
Approach summer meals sponsors or sites about their transportation needs as early as possible to determine summer meals needs
Reach out to advocacy organizations, local schools, and social services providers to find the key summer meals contacts in their community
Sponsors & sites
Ask state summer meals administrators for recommendations of potential transit partners and successful transportation models
Position a summer meals partnership as a tool for transit agencies to increase ridership, reduce stigma, and cultivate new lifelong users of public transit
Engage hunger advocacy groups, human service nonprofits and agencies, TAGs, United Ways, city council, the local school district, transit authority, and parents to think collaboratively about transportation partnerships
46
ADDENDUM
Core Courses Applied to Our Capstone Project
We applied many lessons from our Master of Public Administration (MPA) core courses
to our capstone project focused on addressing transportation barriers in the summer meals
program. Of particular significance were Cross-Sectoral Governance in the U.S. Federal System
(PPPA 6000), Research Methods and Applied Statistics (PPPA 6002), and Leadership in Public
Administration and Public Policy (PPPA 6004), for which we outline lessons in depth below.
Introduction to Public Service and Administration (PPPA 6001) and Public and Nonprofit
Program Evaluation (PPPA 6016)—while not a core course for MPA students—provided helpful
guidance as well. Ultimately our core courses prepared us to work successfully as a team,
manage a research project, and deliver a professional product to our client, Share Our Strength’s
No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices.
Cross-Sectoral Governance in the U.S. Federal System (PPPA 6000) introduced us to the
roles of the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors and grounded us with an understanding of the
interaction of federal, state, and local governments with each other and with other sectors. One
reading in particular, The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations:
Propositions from the Literature by Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone (2006), provided
practical guidance on the conditions that are likely to generate cross-sector collaborations and the
features of cross-sector collaborations that are most likely to lead to successful outcomes. Based
on an extensive literature review, Bryson et al. (2006) offer a framework for understanding
cross-sector collaborations that highlights variables related to process, structure and governance,
contingencies and constraints, and outcomes.
47
In learning from our client about existing partnerships that address transportation barriers
to summer meals, we realized that the majority of our interviews would involve cross-sector
collaborations at the local and state level. Having a solid understanding of the core components
of cross-sector collaboration from the Bryson et al. reading informed our interview questions. As
we sought to document the processes (informal and formal) and structures used to create and
manage transportation partnerships, we found that many of Bryson et al.’s conclusions rang true
in our interviews, particularly the importance of agreeing on the problem and mission, involving
leaders who have the authority to act, having a process for engaging stakeholders, and
continuously building trust within the collaboration. The Bryson et al. article provided us helpful
context for our project and served as a central component of our literature review. The authors’
final conclusion that cross-sector collaborations are necessary to address complex public
problems—though hardly easy to successfully create and sustain—is another important lesson to
bear in mind, as many of the collaborations we documented are in the early stages.
Research Methods and Applied Statistics (PPPA 6002) provided us with skills to
critically evaluate the empirical studies we considered for our literature review and instructed us
on the research methods available to us in conducting this project. We found the class sessions
and readings related to data collection methods to be particularly relevant. We learned about the
variety of probability and non-probability sampling designs and quantitative and qualitative
methods, as well as the benefits and limitations of each. Within non-probability sampling
designs, the concept of snowball sampling proved highly useful for our project, as we were given
a small number of initial leads from our client and needed to generate more interviewees by
talking with stakeholders who knew about existing partnerships. The course also made us acutely
aware of the importance of validity in research. Measurement validity was important to consider
48
as we generated our pre-interview questionnaire so that we were accurately measuring what we
intended to measure.
Regarding qualitative research, we learned that the strengths of this method involve the
ability for in-depth study, rich description, and opportunities to explore unanticipated topics. We
also learned that qualitative methods are helpful for inductive research—gathering data to inform
theory—which was particularly relevant as our client needed to grasp a better understanding of
what practitioners are doing to address summer meals transportation barriers and what works in
promising partnerships. Granted, we experienced firsthand some of the limitations of qualitative
methods outlined in the class, including that it is time consuming and can be challenging to
analyze since statistical description is not possible. In the course, we were also cautioned that
qualitative data can be influenced by the interviewer, so we used a standardized set of questions
to ask each type of interviewee and developed scripts to begin and end each interview. Finally,
we learned that the small samples involved with interviews can make it difficult to generalize
(external validity), so we have taken into account that limitation of our research for our client.
Leadership in Public Administration and Public Policy (PPPA 6004) helped our team
navigate management of this project and of our team as a whole. This course also provided
theoretical and operational perspectives of leadership and management that we kept in mind as
we interacted with our client and the stakeholders we interviewed. In particular, we found that
the concept of evidenced-based management carried into our capstone project by challenging us
to consider evidence from the local context, practitioner expertise, research from the literature,
and stakeholder perspectives. In making our recommendations to our client, and ultimately to
summer meals stakeholders (Appendix E), we considered these elements knowing full-well that
context matters immensely and local stakeholder input is essential.
49
In terms of our group management, the leadership course helped us to individually reflect
on our strengths and weaknesses as leaders such that collectively we could maximize our
effectiveness as a group. We had all completed the Gallup Strengthsfinder assessment as part of
the Trachtenberg School Women’s Leadership Fellows program, and we used that information to
communicate our strengths in executing, influencing, relationships and strategic thinking (just as
we had used the tool in crafting our Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats analysis in the
leadership course). In the leadership course, we also learned about the five components of
emotional intelligence (E.I.), including the self-management aspects of self awareness, self-
regulation, and motivation and the relationship management aspects of empathy and social skill.
Each of us practiced E.I. throughout our project, which contributed to our success as a team in
many respects. We worked with each other holistically—valuing and respecting each person and
managing ourselves appropriately—which fueled our group productivity, enabling us to
smoothly complete the project.
Further lessons that helped our project included concepts from PPPA 6001 and PPPA
6016. Introduction to Public Service and Administration (PPPA 6001) introduced us to the
discipline of public administration and provided key information about the theoretical
approaches of public service organizations. We found Charles Lindblom’s concept of
incrementalism to be a pragmatic approach for setting realistic expectations and empowering
public administrators to take small steps toward a bigger goal—likely a necessary concept for
administrators attempting to address significant transportation barriers to summer meals
programs. Public and Nonprofit Program Evaluation (PPPA 6016) taught our team how to
ethically design and conduct program evaluations and how to assess program evaluations done
by others. The emphasis on ethical research was at the forefront of our minds as we designed our
50
methodology and interacted with our interviewees. PPPA 6016 also taught us the value of
evaluation writ large. The class helped us recognize a major limitation of our research—that few
of the summer meals-transportation partnerships have been formally evaluated—and
consequently led us to recommend that our client conduct and encourage evaluations of these
partnerships when possible.
Our core courses equipped us well for a successful capstone project. With our lessons in
research methods, evaluation, and ethics, we were able to thoughtfully design and execute a
research project employing sound qualitative research practices. The seminal work of Bryson,
Crosby, and Middleton Stone (2006) on cross-sector collaboration informed our literature review
and interview questions, and the concepts of evidenced-based management and incrementalism
also influenced our team’s approach to the work. With the leadership lessons we gained in class
and have since practiced, our team dynamics enabled a productive and enjoyable group
experience despite a rigorous project with a demanding time frame. Ultimately, our course
lessons positioned us for success on our capstone project, and we will carry these lessons with us
into our professional lives upon graduation.
51