EFFECTIVENESS OF SUMMER MOBILE

FEEDING UNIT ON INCREASING

CHILDREN’S ACCESS TO FOOD
STEPHANIE ORMSBY
APRIL 3, 2019
Objectives
▪Recognize the significance of childhood food insecurity and
importance of government feeding programs.
▪Understand the results of District 87’s 2018 SFSP and the
addition of the mobile feeding unit.
▪Apply the outcomes of this research to future years and to
SFSP sponsors in other communities.
Introduction
Childhood Food Insecurity
▪ In 2017, over 6.5 million children in the US were food insecure
(Coleman-Jensen et al., 2018).
▪298,000 households report having one or more children experience
substantial reductions in food intake (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2018).
▪Food security impacts the health of children, families, and
communities by contributing to physical, mental, and social detriments
(Wilkerson, Khalfe, & Kray, 2015).
▪Timing, intensity and duration of food insecurity are factors that
impact the severity of negative outcomes (Milner, Fiorella, Mattah,
Bukusi, & Fernald, 2017).
Food Programs for Children
▪National School Lunch Program (NSLP) provides 30 million meals
per day, 74% of which are served were to students who qualify for
free or reduced-price lunch (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2018).
▪The percentage of households with food insecure children
increased from 4% during school months to 5.5% during June, July,
and August (Huang, Kim, & Barnidge, 2015).
▪ Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) strives to ensure that
children continue to receive the nutrition they need when school is
not in session.
Summer Food Service Program
▪Only 1 in every 7 kids who relied on a free meal during the school
year participated in SFSP in 2016 (FRAC, 2019).
▪Participation declined by 5% in 2016. First decline since 2011 (Hayes,
Rosso, Anderson, & FitzSimons, 2017).
▪Transportation is the largest barrier to SFSP participation (Wauchope,
& Stracuzzi, 2010).
▪Mobile feeding units, to transport meals to children, has been
encouraged by the USDA since 2015 (USDA, 2015).
Research Questions
1) Does the mobile feeding unit allow the SFSP to feed
children who otherwise would not attend a feeding
site?
2) In this community, is transportation a barrier for
children to attend a SFSP feeding site?
3) Should mobile feeding be continued in future years
and if so, what future improvements could be
implemented to better serve children?
Methodology
District 87
▪Meals were offered weekdays from June 4, 2018- August
10, 2018, with the exception of Independence Day.
▪In 2018, 4 new sites were added. The public library and 3
apartment complexes as part of a mobile feeding unit.
▪Holton Homes, Evergreen Homes, and Wood Hill
Apartments, all part of the Bloomington Housing
Authority, were chosen as mobile feeding sites.
2018 SFSP
Feeding Site
Locations

Stationary Feeding Site

Mobile Feeding Site
Surveys
▪ On June 29th and August 3rd, different short surveys were
administered to children at each mobile site.
▪Volunteers, using iPads, verbally asked children the survey
questions and recorded their answers. Personal assent was
given by the child.
▪All 62 children who received a meal on June 29th agreed to
participate in the 1st survey.
▪47 children received a meal on August 3rd, of that, 38
(80.9%) agreed to participate in the 2nd survey.
Data Analysis
▪Total meals served on each day of the week at each meal site were
received for every year since 2015.
▪Data analysis included frequencies, bivariate correlation statistics, and
one-way ANOVA. This allowed trends to emerge and the impact of the
new mobile feeding sites to transpire.
▪A statistical level of p<0.05 was used to determine significance.
Results
SFSP
Participation
from 2015-2018
2018 SFSP
Participation by
Feeding Site

Month

101.7
SFSP Participation
Changes Since
2015
2017-2018 NSLP
Participation
Previous
Participation at a
SFSP Site
 Correlations
Previous previ site
Participation and
previ Pearson 1 .285*
Current Mobile Correlation
Feeding Site Sig. (2-tailed) 0.025
N 62 62
site Pearson .285* 1
New participation was Correlation
seen at the highest rate
at Wood Hill
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.025
Apartments followed by N 62 62
Evergreen Homes and
then Holton Homes. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
(2-tailed).
Previous
Participation
Location
Reasons for Not
Participating in a
Previous Summer
Learned About
the Mobile
Feeding Site
Transportation
to Feeding Site
SFSP Frequency
of Participation
 Correlations
Before
this summer, have you
ever received lunch How many days a
Previous from the summer
feeding program?
week do you come get
a lunch?
Participation and Before Pearson 1 -.370
**

this summer, have you ever Correlation

Frequency received lunch from the
summer feeding program?
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003
N 62 62
How many days a week do Pearson ** 1
-.370
you come get Correlation
a lunch?
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.003
N 62 62
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Children who previously

participated in the SFSP,
came less frequently.
Discussion
Continuing in Future Summers
▪On average over 82 additional meals (21.6% increase)
were served each day by District 87 compared to 2017.
▪It is impossible to conclude that increased
participation is linked specifically to mobile feeding
sites, however it did contribute.
▪Unanimously, mobile feeding site participants want
the mobile feeding unit to return in coming years.
Mobile Feeding Sites
▪Sheridan Elementary was the most common previously
attended site, most likely due to the proximity with both
Holton Homes and Evergreen Homes.
▪Wood Hill Apartments was the best location for
reaching new children.
▪With the exception of Holton Homes, District 87 did not
pull the majority of children from already established
sites.
Prior Travel 0.75 mile
Distances to
Feeding Sites 0.5 mile

1 mile

Stationary Feeding Site

Mobile Feeding Site
Transportation
▪The full extent to which transportation is a barrier cannot be
determined. However, mobile feeding site participation is
congruent with convenience and proximity.
▪Volunteers noted many children coming to get lunch on bikes were
playing more than using them as transportation.
▪The distance traveled to mobile feeding
sites was much less because most
participants were residents in these
apartments.
Limitations
▪SFSP feeding rates were on the rise, it is impossible to know if the
trend would continue without the addition of the mobile feeding sites,
or to what extent the mobile feeding sites contributed to the increase.
▪ Bloomington Library was also added as a new stationary feeding site in
2018.

▪The reliability of surveying children who may not remember, are shy to
answer, or imaginative in their responses.
▪It was determined best to only administer each survey once so
conclusions made cannot be generalized to other summer feeding days
or to other feeding sites.
Conclusion
Summary
▪Food insecurity rates increase during summer
months when children do not have access to
school meals.
▪District 87 piloted a mobile feeding unit as a
solution to low SFSP participation rates
because transportation was identified as a
barrier.
▪The mobile feeding unit was effective at
increasing childrens’ access to food during the
summer.
Research Answers
1) Yes, the mobile feeding unit allows the majority of
children eating there to receive a meal who otherwise
would not.
2) Distance of feeding sites is a barrier to participation,
however the degree to which transportation is a
barrier cannot be determined.
3) Yes, the mobile feeding sites should be continued in
future years with the possible exception of Holton
Homes. 23% requested improvements regarding the
food including options, quantity, or frequency.
Future Directions
▪Further exploration of the effects the mobile feeding unit has on SFSP
participation and benefits of the mobile feeding unit.
▪Best practices regarding site locations, timing, and food accessibility
needs of children eating there.
▪Research knowledge of SFSP feeding sites and the distance a site is
from a child’s home.
Questions
 References
Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C. A., Rabbitt, M. P., & Singh, A. (2018). Household food security in the United States in 2017. [PDF file]. United States
Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=90022
Food, Action, and Resource Center. (2019). Summer nutrition programs. Retrieved from http://frac.org/programs/summer-nutrition-programs.
Gitterman, B.A., Chilton, L.A., Cotton, W.H., Duffee, J.H., Flanagan, P., Keane, V.A., … Schwarzenberg, S.J. (2015). Promoting food security for all
children. Pediatrics, 136(5) 1431–1438.
Hayes, C., Rosso, R., Anderson, S., & FitzSimons, C. (2017). Hunger doesn’t take a summer vacation: Summer nutrition status report. [PDF file]. Food
Research & Action Center. Retrieved from http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-summer-nutrition-report-1.pdf
Huang, J., Kim, Y., & Barnidge, E. (2015). Children receiving free or reduced-price school lunch have higher food insufficiency rates in summer. The
Journal of Nutrition, 145(9), 2161–2168.
Milner, E.M., Fiorella, K.J., Mattah, B.J., Bukusi, E., & Fernald, L.C.H. (2018). Timing, intensity, and duration of household food insecurity are associated
with early childhood development in Kenya. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 14(2), 125-143.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2012). Nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs. Final rule. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22359796
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2015). Mobile feeding. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/mobile-
feeding
Wauchope, B., & Stracuzzi, N. (2010). Challenges in serving rural American children through the summer food service program. Carsey Institute, 13, 1-
4.
Wilkerson R.L., Khalfe D., & Krey K. (2015). Associations between neighborhoods and summer meals sites: Measuring access to federal summer meals
programs. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 6(2) 1-15.