Background: Food insecurity rates drastically increased during the COVID-19 pandemic contributing to high demand for emergency nutrition assistance. Prior research indicates emergency food distribution centers mainly offer food with limited nutritional value; since nutritional status may be worse among food insecure families, it is important to conduct research to inform policy and programmatic strategies to address both food insecurity and nutrition-related health disparities during a state of emergency.
Purpose: The study objectives were to: (1) assess the nutritional environment of emergency food distribution centers in the San Joaquin Valley, CA; (2) identify challenges food distribution centers encountered during the pandemic; and (3) provide policy and programmatic recommendations to improve access to and the availability of nutritious food to low-income communities.
Methods: A nutritional assessment was conducted with 19 emergency food centers in the San Joaquin Valley, California. A modified version of the valid and reliable Nutrition Environment Food Pantry Assessment Tool (NEFPAT) was self-administered by food pantries and banks during the pandemic. The six NEFPAT objectives were included, and we developed a seventh component to capture data on challenges encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges of distribution sites were identified and differentiated by type of organization (i.e., food bank, food pantry, church).
Results: A total of 19 completed site assessments from 7 counties are included in the analysis. Using the NEFPAT classification score, all were either bronze (16%) or silver (84%). Analyses were stratified by the type of emergency food organization: church (47%) or other food pantry (53%). All sites (i.e., church and other pantries) reported experiencing a decrease in volunteers and staff. However, food pantries experienced an increase in quantity of clients while church pantries struggled with client retention. Logistical challenges were also mentioned, pantries experienced inconsistent food donations. Others expressed high levels of concern about COVID-19 safety but managed to remain open by using a drive-thru distribution model and promoting social distancing with limits on the number of clients allowed inside a building at a time.
Conclusion: Policy recommendations include increasing funding to smaller charitable nutrition assistance sites to support fresh produce access and funding for the implementation of nutrition policy guidelines to improve the food environment. Programmatic recommendations include the adoption for a nutrition ranking system for food pantries, implementation of nudges to improve the selection of healthier food items, and use of valid and reliable data collection instruments to inform decisions to tailor food options that are aligned with the medical/health and social needs of food pantry clients.
