Growing in Solidarity: Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

GROWING IN SOLIDARITY EXAMINING FOOD INEQUITES IN AUBURN

Acknowledgements We would like to express our appreciation and gratitude to the many agencies, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to this project. This includes Auburn community members who participated in the survey, to staff in the Assessment, Policy, Development, and Evaluation department and the Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention Department at Public Health-Seattle & King County who analyzed the data and contributed to our recommendations, to Auburn Youth Resources, Saint Matthews/San Mateo Episcopal Church, The Auburn Food Bank, and People’s Action (formerly known as the Alliance for Just Society) who helped with the development of the survey, and to the field canvass team at Washington CAN! who distributed the survey.

August 2017

By Nalani Yoko, MPH, Community Organizer Contributors: Margaret Diddams, Ph.D and Chris Genese, Associate Director

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 Chronic Disease and the Decline of Health in the United States ........................................... 6 The Role of Washington CAN! in Auburn .............................................................................. 7 Background ............................................................................................................................. 8 Social Conditions that Affect Health-who is affected the most ............................................. 8 Wages, Income, Time, and Cost ............................................................................................ 8 The Self-Sufficiency Standard ............................................................................................... 9 Location of Grocery Stores ................................................................................................... 9 Food Insecurity and Race ................................................................................................... 10 Gender Inequities .............................................................................................................. 10 Food Insecurity in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Community ........... 11 Moving Forward in Auburn ................................................................................................ 11 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 11 Survey Development .......................................................................................................... 11 Population of Interest ........................................................................................................ 12 Survey Administration........................................................................................................ 12 Dependent variable............................................................................................................ 12 Independent variable ......................................................................................................... 12 Statistical Analysis.............................................................................................................. 12 Key Informant Interviews ................................................................................................... 13 Community Meetings ......................................................................................................... 13

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

2

Participants At-A-Glance ........................................................................................................ 13 Results ................................................................................................................................... 15 Food Insecurity .................................................................................................................. 15 Location to Grocery Stores ................................................................................................. 16 Food Insecurity and Socioeconomic Status ......................................................................... 16 Food Insecurity and Children .............................................................................................. 16 Food Insecurity and Race ................................................................................................... 17 Households with Children .................................................................................................. 17 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Food Insecurity .................... 18 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 18 Beyond Behavior Change ................................................................................................... 18 Economics .......................................................................................................................... 19 Government Subsidies ....................................................................................................... 20 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 22 1. Decrease Locational Challenges to Food Access .............................................................. 22 2. Supporting access to locally grown, organic produce and Increasing Healthy Food Retail 23 3. Expand Institutional Procurement of Healthy Food Options ........................................... 25 4. Protect and Expanding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) ............ 25 5. Decrease the cost of basic needs so families can afford healthy food ............................. 25 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 27 Citations ................................................................................................................................ 28 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 31 Appendix A: Food Justice Survey ....................................................................................... 31

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A person’s health outcomes are determined by where they live. In Auburn, a resident lives 10-years shorter than their neighbors in north King County. The disparity in health outcomes between Auburn residents and residents in the rest of the county can only be addressed by changing the social and economic conditions that inhibit residents’ ability to make healthy choices One of the most important factors influencing the health of a community is access to healthy food.

Access to healthy food prevents many chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, degenerative eye disease, obesity, and dental caries. This report will focus on the social determinants that obstruct Auburn residents’ ability to access healthy food and identify the immediate solutions needed to begin closing the gap between Auburn and the rest of King County.

The goal of this report is to:  Present underlying factors that affect health and food insecurity in Auburn  Identify solutions to address challenges around food insecurity in Auburn Washington CAN! used the following methods to create this report:  Best Practices and Scientific Review: Washington CAN! reviewed national public health strategies, scholarly journals, organizational reports, and best practices to identify solutions to improving food access.  Surveys: In January and May of 2016, Washington CAN! collected 678 surveys from Auburn residents about the root causes of food insecurity  Statistical Analysis: Survey results were analyzed using chi-square tests to determine associations between the variables to determine factors that contribute to food insecurity  Key Informant Interviews: Washington CAN! spoke with Auburn residents affected by food insecurity to learn about residents’ personal experiences around food insecurity and recommendations to addressing these challenges  Community Meetings: Washington CAN! brought Auburn residents together in community meetings to share ideas and figure out steps communities can take to address food insecurity.

Findings  Food Insecurity: Two in five respondents said they worry about running out of money for food (41.5%), over one-third ran out of money for food (36.2%) and one in five respondents skipped meals due to lack of money (22.2%).

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

4







  

Basic needs over food: Respondents had to prioritize basic needs. 31% had to choose food over basic needs, such as medication, rent, clothes, health insurance or bills. 22.5% of respondents chose the same basic needs over food.

Location to Grocery Stores: When asked how far the grocery store is from their homes, 44.6% of respondents said that it was more than 1 mile away or over 20 minutes driving or walking distance.

Food Insecurity and Socioeconomic Status: Participants from all employment statuses experience food insecurity. However, food insecurity is the highest among participants unable to work due to a disability (73.5%) and lowest among participants working 41-60 hours a week (p<0.001).

Food Insecurity and Children: Of the participants with children under the age of 18, 84.3% experienced any food insecurity and 53.7% experienced pronounced food insecurity.

Food Insecurity and Race: In Auburn, Blacks/African Americans experience the highest rate of pronounced food insecurity at 64.1%.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Food Insecurity: Despite receiving food assistance, 91.3% of respondents who receive food assistance still experience food insecurity and 76% experienced pronounced food insecurity. For respondents who are ineligible for SNAP or who do not know they are eligible, 74.3% experience food insecurity and 41% experience pronounced food insecurity.

Washington CAN! Recommends the following: 1. Decrease Locational Challenges to Food Access: o Build sustainability of the Good Food Bag Program o Create market gardens o Create and modify tax status and zone to attract grocery stores into high need areas 2. Support Local Farmers and Increasing Healthy Food Retail o Develop healthier convenience stores o Label and celebrate locally grown produce at food retail o Increase food production in underutilized land including community gardens, demonstration farms and edible landscaping o Create a charitable crop donation policy o Identify sustainability goals for the City of Auburn 3. Expand Institutional Procurement of Healthy Food Options o Create healthy vending machine policies o Increase farm-to-institution programs 4. Protect and Expanding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program o Expand outreach for enrollment o Expand EBT Technology for healthy food retail o Advocate for state and federal change 5. Decrease the Cost of Basic Needs Allowing Families to Better Afford Healthy Foods 6. Remove Barriers to Housing and Further Protect tenants o Create a department to inspect residential rental properties to ensure quality, humane housing o Remove barriers to housing such as high move-in costs o Protect tenants from unjust evictions and discrimination

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

5

INTRODUCTION CHRONIC DISEASE AND THE DECLINE OF HEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES For the last several decades, the United States has fallen behind other wealthy democracies in health outcomes. In the 1950’s, America was one of the global leaders in national health, ranking 5th in the world for life expectancy.1 Today, despite having the highest healthcare expenditure per capita, the United States ranks only 35th.2 For the first time in American history, children will live shorter lives than their parents.3 While life expectancy has increased for the last 23 years,4 in 2015, life expectancy dropped in the United States.5 Such failures arise from poor national public health that begin on the local level.

King County is the 6th healthiest county in Washington, overall, but there is a 10-year life expectancy difference among cities and neighborhoods in the county.6 The city most affected by poor health outcomes is Auburn, with the lowest life expectancy at birth of any other city in King County.17,8 Nearly one in five Auburn residents report fair or poor health, the fourth highest rating in all of King County.8 Auburn reports the highest rate of deaths due to heart disease and stroke of any city in King County and the second highest number of deaths due to cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease, diabetes mellitus, suicide, and chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.8 The most recent City Health Profile found that 35% of the Auburn community members have been diagnosed as obese (up from 29% in 20127) and 16% have been told they have diabetes8 (up from 10% in 20127). These diagnoses are the highest in the county. The higher prevalence of adverse health conditions experienced by Auburn residents are explained by public health outcomes that are largely mitigatable, if not entirely preventable.

The gross disparity in health outcomes between Auburn residents and residents in the rest of the FIGURE 1 43 county can only be addressed by changing the social LIFE EXPECTANCY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BELLEVUE AND AUBURN and economic conditions that inhibit residents’ ability to make healthy choices. The adoption of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a huge milestone in public health accomplishments. In 2010, before the passage of the ACA, an estimated 16.0% of Auburn residents were uninsured. As a result of the expansion of Medicaid and the creation of the Marketplace, in 2015 the uninsured rate was estimated at 6.4% in Auburn.9 However, access to healthcare only accounts for 10% of a person’s health and wellness.10 Other social factors, such as economics, policies,

1

In northeast Seattle, residents live on average 86.2 years. In south Auburn, residents live on average 76.3 years42 Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

6

race, gender, and the built environment, play a dominant role in health outcomes, by shaping access to resources and increasing the likelihood of specific behaviors. Health disparities can only be addressed in the context of social inequities that contribute to rising chronic diseases and changing the environmental factors that lead to healthier behavior.11

THE ROLE OF WASHINGTON CAN! IN AUBURN In 2013, Washington Community Action Network (Washington CAN!), a grassroots organization committed to racial, economic, and gender justice, began working with Auburn residents, community organizations and agencies to identify barriers to public health and community-driven solutions to improve the wellbeing of Auburn residents. The organization conducted surveys, interviews, focus groups, and community meetings to understand what changes were most needed to improve health in the community. Residents consistently identified access to healthy food as their principal concern.

Transforming the health in a community does not happen overnight. Washington CAN! has been working to address food insecurity in the city for the past four years through the Auburn Good Food program. This program benefits hundreds of Auburn residents by increasing access to Auburn-grown, chemical-free fruits and vegetables by reducing the cost of produce for lower-income residents of Auburn. Washington CAN! distributes produce at locations where residents already gather so that families can pick-up a bag during their weekly routine. In 2016, 180 different families benefitted from this program, increasing consumption of nutrient-dense organic fruits and vegetables. Although the Auburn Good Food Bag program addresses the immediate need for affordable and accessible food, other solutions are necessary to also address the rooted challenges around food insecurity.

To understand community-driven solutions that address the systemic challenges of food insecurity in Auburn, Washington CAN! engaged Auburn residents in January and May of 2016. Washington CAN! collected 678 surveys about the root causes of food insecurity. This report compiles survey results with the goal of better understanding the underlying factors that affect health and food insecurity in Auburn and to identify solution to address these challenges. As a collective, Auburn elected officials, community organizations, and residents can together implement recommended solution in order to decrease food insecurity and improve the health outcomes of Auburn residents.

Solely educating communities in hopes of achieving broad behavior change will likely not result in reducing inequitable health outcomes. Education by itself ignores the causality that economic and social factors have on disparate health outcomes. Rather, communities see significantly better health outcomes through policy and system changes that directly address these economic and social determinants. What type of environment will support the health and well-being of Auburn residents?

This reports aims to answer this question by first looking at realities Auburn community members face along with recommendations and solutions that have come from community collaboration.

In alignment with Auburnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Blue Ribbon Committee and the Healthy Auburn Task Force, Washington CAN! is committed to addressing the health disparities that affect Auburn residents and to work collaboratively with Auburn community members towards health equity. No oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s race, gender, or class should determine the length and quality of their life.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

7

BACKGROUND SOCIAL CONDITIONS THAT AFFECT HEALTH-WHO IS AFFECTED THE MOST In order to improve the health and well-being of a community, it is necessary to look at structural conditions which perpetuate health disparities by constraining peoples’ ability to make healthy choices. Such factors are the social determinants of health, defined as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life.”12 One of the most important factors influencing the health of a community is access to healthy food. A lack of healthy, affordable food options lead to many preventable chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, degenerative eye disease, obesity, and dental caries.11 This report will focus on the social determinants that impede Auburn residents’ ability to FIGURE 2 DETERMINANTS OF EQUITY19 access healthy food and identify some key immediate and long-term solutions needed to begin closing the gap between Auburn and the rest of King County.

WAGES, INCOME, TIME, AND COST Due to the cost of healthy food, the constraints on time for those working multiple jobs, and a multitude of other factors, low-income groups experience the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the United States.13 Because wages have not adjusted to the rising expenses of basic needs,14 there is no state that has a minimum wage that allows an individual working 40-hour week to rent a one-bedroom apartment without paying more than 30% of their income.15 As a result, many adults are forced to choose which basic needs to prioritize. The ability to even afford any type of food is seen as an accomplishment.

Therefore it is no surprise that many low-income communities can only afford the cheapest options available. The lowest-cost source of dietary energy include refined grains, sugars, and fats while nutrient-dense foods such as lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit are generally more expensive.

Additionally, these issues are made harder for families with dependents. 13 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, despite having at least one full-time working adult, 68% of households with children experience hunger.16 When faced with the decision of what food to purchase, lower-income households, tend to select the meal that will feed their family, even if it is not the healthiest option. 13 Even if a person wants to eat healthier, it is not a feasible option for low-income individuals.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

8

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD The University of Washington’s self-sufficiency standard is the measure that takes into account family composition and location and determines the realistic income to support a family without public or private assistance. Despite working a full-time job or receiving social security due to retirement or disability, many families are unable to afford basic needs. In King County, on average, childcare and housing alone account for 50% of a family’s budget. So a single parent with one preschooler would need to make $29.28 per hour to afford childcare, housing, healthy food, healthcare, and other bills without relying on government subsides (see Appendix A for the cost breakdown for Auburn residents).14 Despite the increase in the minimum wage, salaries are still far below what families need to survive. The largest number of jobs held in Washington is service jobs like cashiers, food preparers, and waiters and waitresses, which are paid between $9.71 and $11.43 per hour. A single parent working two full-time service sector jobs at these wages would still be unable to afford their family’s basic needs. Over the past 13 years in Washington, the self-sufficiency standard for a family with two adults, a preschooler, and a school-aged child increased by 41%, 3.6% each year. However, the statewide median earnings have only increased by 21%, half of the increase in the self-sufficiency standard. In other words, since 2004, the cost of basic needs has increased at twice the rate of wages.14 FIGURE 3. THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD FOR KING COUNTY (SOUTH), WA 201414 <SUP>19</SUP>(KING COUNTY, 2015)

LOCATION OF GROCERY STORES Another factor that affects a person’s ability to eat healthy foods is the distance from home to a grocery store. Neighborhoods with access to more healthful foods have increased healthy food intake.17 Inversely, when healthy food is not available, neighborhood residents tend to be affected more severely by obesity. Research shows that larger grocery stores are stocked with more healthy food options at much cheaper prices, which greatly affects diet quality.18 However, in lower-income non-white neighborhoods, large grocery stores are hard to come by and instead are replaced with fast food restaurants and convenience stores18 which offer high-calorie foods at much higher prices and little fresh produce.17 Studies demonstrate that black neighborhoods have half as many grocery stores as Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

9

their white counterparts, and Hispanic neighborhoods have one-third the amount.17 This is a huge challenge in King County where there are 2.5 times more convenience stores and fast food restaurants then there are grocery stores. In South King County, where there are more communities of color and communities with limited English proficiency (LEP), there are 5 to 7 times more fast food restaurant and convenience stores then there are grocery stores.19 This demonstrates the significant difference in grocery store access by income, race, and ethnicity.18 Additionally, low-income families often lack access to transportation, forcing many to rely on convenience stores with few or no healthy options. 18 Locations of grocery stores is a race and equity issue which puts lower-income communities and people of color at greater risk for obesity.

FOOD INSECURITY AND RACE Food insecurity and race are closely related. People of color nationwide live shorter lives and experience food insecurity and food-related diseases at rates much higher than their white counterparts. 20 The same disparity holds true locally. In King County, close to half of Hispanic households with at least one child report running out of food in the last 12 months, and 19 in 2013, 31% of Hispanic households faced food insecurity, compared to 9% of White households.21 Additionally, non-white neighborhoods tend to be the furthest from healthy food options, making it challenging for communities to access fresh produce.18 Economic disparities between communities of color and white communities are the main driver in inequitable food security and related health outcomes. People of color are forced into the lowest paying jobs due to factors like limited language proficiency among foreign-born residents, inequities in access to education, and discrimination in wages or hiring practices. For example, African Americans experience poverty at 2.5 times the rate of White Americans22,23 and experience twice the rate of unemployment. 22 As a result, African Americans have the higher rates of diabetes, hypertensions, and heart disease than any other group in every state. Also, American Indian and Alaska Native adults are 2.1 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes then white adults.24

GENDER INEQUITIES Gender is another factor that determines food inequities. Female-headed households experience a higher prevalence of food insecurity compared to the national average. One reason is discrimination in hiring, wages, and promotions that results in a gender pay gap.25 In 2015, in almost every occupation, female full-time workers made 80 cents to every dollar a man earned. For middle-income jobs mainly worked by women, women made 66 cents for every dollar a man earned. And yet, women provide equally or are the breadwinners for 4 out of 10 households.26 Additionally, jobs that allow women the time and schedule flexibility to maintain their obligations for the home and for their children are less available and inherently pay less.25 When families make low-wages, food insecurity increases, and the quality of foods consumed decreases, explaining the high rates of obesity among low-income women. In households that are food insecure, women tend to sacrifice their own health and wellbeing to provide for their family by skipping meals and eating less nutrient dense foods so that the children can eat healthier meals.27 While it is important for children to eat healthy food for their overall health and wellness, it is just as important that parents, especially mothers who are disproportionally affected by inequities, are supported in raising healthy families. Moreover, parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; health has a very direct effect on the quality of life for children. Time that parents spend sick can both be traumatic for children and affect the already limited time parents, particularly single mothers, can spend nurturing and raising children.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

10

FOOD INSECURITY IN THE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER COMMUNITY The ability to access food is also influenced by a person’s gender identity. More than one in four Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults experienced a time where they did not have enough money to buy food. This equates to approximately 2.2 million US residents who struggled to put food on their table. In comparison, about one in five non-LGBT adults did not have enough money to buy food.

The reasons for food insecurity can be explained by discrimination. People in the LGBT community experience work discrimination and are uninsured at much higher rates. They may also lack family support, or, until recently, could not receive the financial benefits of marriage, an institution that presents economic advantages. 28,29 In the transgender community, individuals experience unemployment at three times the rate of the national average and one-third of transgender adults experience homelessness at some point in their life. 30 LGBT adults are 1.6 times more likely than others to report not having enough money to feed themselves and their families.28,29

MOVING FORWARD IN AUBURN In order to narrow the inequities in food access, it is essential to evaluate the needs of groups most affected by food insecurity. Inequities will continue to divide communities and perpetuate health disparities without taking into account a person’s race, gender, socioeconomic status, and location.

Auburn has a thriving community with individuals from diverse backgrounds. 24.2% of Auburn residents are people of color. 18.3% are foreign born. While Auburn is both diversifying and growing, a significant portion of the population is struggling. 9.5% of residents are unemployed. With 352 homeless individuals, there has been a 20% increase in homelessness since 2014.31 For many families in Auburn, the aforementioned challenges are all too common. Data collected from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey showed that 17.2% of Auburn residents live below 100% of the federal poverty line and 34% live below 200% of the federal poverty line.8 When an individual is receiving such low wages, affording other basic needs such as housing, medical expenses, and food become a challenge. When 55.6% of Auburn residents are paying greater than or equal to 30% of their household income on rent, people have very little left to afford childcare, transportation, household utilities, medical, and food. High rents and low incomes in Auburn explain the high percentage of people who are unable to afford healthy food options and hence struggle with obesity and other chronic disease.7,8 This report aims to analyze data collected by Washington CAN!, to summarize realities Auburn community members face and to provide recommendations and solutions to work towards making Auburn a healthier community.

METHODS SURVEY DEVELOPMENT In partnership with Nexus Youth and Families (formerly known as Auburn Youth Resources), Saint Matthews/San Mateo Episcopal Church, People’s Action (formerly known as the Alliance for a Just Society), and the Auburn Food Bank, Washington CAN! developed a survey to learn more about the systemic barriers to food access in the Auburn community. Questions were determined by the community organizations who directly witness food insecurity in Auburn and understand the social determinants of health that directly link to food insecurity. Existing food insecurity surveys were also referenced to determine questions that would shed light onto the pronouncement of food insecurity in Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

11

residents. The developed survey (Appendix A) consisted of 22 questions, including demographic information, household income and employment status, distance from home to work, health insurance status, five standard food insecurity questions, distance from supermarkets, food stamp qualification, belief of healthy food consumptions linking healthier communities, number of times eating away from home, and distance of grocery stores from home.

POPULATION OF INTEREST Using City-Data, an interactive forum that collects and analyzes data from public records and other sources to create city profiles, as well as data on regions with the highest percentage of children on free and reduced lunch, Washington CAN! determined locations to administer surveys. Since the lowestincome neighborhoods in Auburn are most severely affected by food insecurity, Washington CAN! focused its attention on these neighborhoods.

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Surveys were administered by trained Washington CAN! field canvassers through door-to-door outreach between January and May of 2016. Surveys were administered on 40 different occasions from 4pm-8pm, when families are most likely to be home. The field canvassers knocked on a total of 2,127 doors.

Out of individuals who were contacted by field canvassers, 678 completed the survey. Surveys were administered verbally, talking between 3-8 minutes, and recorded on paper.

Low Food Security: Reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet.

Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

Very Low Food Security: Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.44

DEPENDENT VARIABLE Using the United States Department of Agriculture’s definition of food insecurity, the following five questions were developed to measure food insecurity in Auburn.

The primary dependent variable was food insecurity and was determined using five questions: 1. Does your family buy food of lower quality than you prefer because of cost?

2. Do you eat the same thing for several days in a row because that’s what you have, and there’s no money to buy more?

3. Do you or your family worry about food running out before you get money to buy more?

4. Do you or your family run out of food?

5. Do you or your family members skip meals because you can’t afford enough food?

If anyone answered “sometimes” or “often” to any of the five questions, they were considered to experience food insecurity. In alignment with the USDA’s definition for “very low food security”, any individuals who responded “sometimes” or “often” to questions #3, #4, or #5 were considered to experience more pronounced food insecurity.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE Explanatory variables included race, children under the age of 18 in the household, access to food stamps, and employment status.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Results from the 678 surveys were compiled by Washington CAN! staff and analyzed by Public HealthSeattle and King County in Stata. Using chi-square tests, PHSKC determined the associations between the variables to determine factors that contribute to food insecurity. The chi-square test is important because it measures how well the results of an analysis fit what is expected if the variable are Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

12

independent. It does this by taking two categorical variables in a single population and measures if there is an association between these two variables. For example, if we wanted to measure food insecurity and race, food insecurity would be classified by levels of food insecurity (secure, low security, very low security) and race would be classified by racial identity. The chi-square test would test for independence to determine if race was related to level of food insecurity.

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS From the collected surveys, Washington CAN!’s Auburn community organizer connected with individuals who were most affected by food insecurity, knew someone who is very affected by food insecurity, or who had recommendations to bring change to their community. Interviews ranged from 30-90 minutes each and were designed to learn more about residents’ personal experiences around food insecurity and barriers in greater depth than the initial survey.

COMMUNITY MEETINGS Individuals contacted through the survey, through snowball sampling, or other means of outreach, were invited to a 2-hour community meeting with the purpose of finding ways to ensure every family in Auburn is able to feed their families. The first meeting discussed barriers to food access and available assets in the Auburn community, such as friendly communities, beautiful parklands and public spaces, and good relationships with city employees. At the second meeting, attendees discussed ways they could effectively get food into the homes of all Auburn residents. In the last meeting, residents discussed recommendations on solutions to these questions. Attendance ranged from five to fifteen members. Meetings have continued to commence two times a month.

PARTICIPANTS AT-A-GLANCE

With the goal of learning from groups most affected by food security, survey collection targeted hard to reach communities such as young people, people of color, and low-income communities. An overview include that of 687 participants in this survey, 41.7% are people of color (compared to Auburn’s 2016 City Profile where only 24.2% identified as a person of color8) while 58.3% are white. About 24% receive EBT. Participants range in age from 18-65+, with the highest representation coming from adults ages 2544. Employment status of participants included those currently employed (64.2%), currently unemployed (14.8%), unable to work due to disability (5.4%), or who were retired (15.6%). Of individuals who were unemployed, unable to work due to disability, or retired, 59.1% reported at least one person in the households who is employed. Over half of participants had a weekly household income less than $600 (annual income of $31,200).

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

13

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

14

FAMILY'S WEEKLY INCOME

[Grab your readerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attention with a great quote from the document (N=499) or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]

>$2001

6%

$1501-$2000

7%

$1001-$1500

9%

$851-$1000

10%

$601-$850

17%

$351-$600

28%

$201-$350

14%

$100-$200 <$100

6% 4%

RESULTS FOOD INSECURITY Weighing whether to purchase food or other essential needs is an unfortunately common decision for the people of Auburn. Table 1 presents the overall summary of food insecurity found from this survey.

Close to two-thirds of participants reported buying lower quality food than preferred (65.6%) and over half reported eating the same thing for several days because that was all that they had and couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t purchase more (53.8%). Of the more pronounced food insecurity questions, two in five respondents said they worry about running out of money for food (41.5%), over one-third ran out of money for food (36.2%) and one in five respondents skipped meals due to lack of money (22.2%). Choosing food over basic needs, such as medication, rent, clothes, health insurance or bills is a reality for 31% of respondents and 22.5% of respondents chose the same basic needs over food.

TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED YES TO FOOD INSECURITY QUESTIONS Overall Food Insecurity Buy lower quality of food 24.1% than preferred Eat the same thing 53.8% for several days in a row

More Pronounced Food Insecurity Worry about running 41.5% out of money for food Run out of money for food

36.2%

Skip meals due to lack of money

22.2%

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

15

Of respondents who reported any food insecurity, 28.7% go without food so they can afford basic needs (p<0.001) and for those with more pronounced food insecurity, 41.9% go without food to afford basic needs (p<0.001).

LOCATION TO GROCERY STORES When grocery stores are far from individual’s homes, geography becomes a food justice issue. Traveling far distances to get fresh and healthy foods requires reliable public transit or access to a car. For many low-income communities in Auburn, time-consuming and expensive travel is not a feasible option. When asked how far the grocery store is from their homes, 44.6% of respondents said that it was more than 1 mile away or over 20 minutes driving or walking distance. Considering that a family needs to spend money on gas to travel far distances to a grocery store, or will need to walk far distances with enough food to feed a family, far distances limit access to healthy food for low-income families.

FOOD INSECURITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Despite working a full-time job or having paid into social security for a lifetime, many families in Auburn still experience food insecurity due to low household incomes. Chi-square tests found a statistically significant difference between the number of hours worked and the experience of running out of food (Table 3). This means that after categorizing individuals by employment status and looking at levels of food insecurity, the number of hours a person worked affected whether or not a family would run out of food. While participants from all employment statuses experience food insecurity, it is the highest among participants unable to work due to a disability (73.5%) and lowest among participants working 41-60 hours a week (p<0.001).

TABLE 2. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND RUNNING OUT OF FOOD Employment Status Facing Food insecurity < 20 Hours 21 – 40 Hours 41 – 60 Hours

13 69 38

Percentage of Individuals Experiencing Food Insecurity (%) 30.9 36 25.7

> 60 Hours Variable Currently Unemployed Unable to work (Disability)

5 3 52 25

41.7 42.9 54.8 73.5

N

Food insecurity increased for respondents who work 21-40 hours a week compared to those who work less than 20 hours a week. A possible explanation could be the self-sufficiency gap between those who qualify for EBT and those who no longer qualify due to income level.

FOOD INSECURITY AND CHILDREN When caring for children, households have added expenses such as childcare costs, increased household sizes, and additional medical and food expenses. These added expenses increase the necessity of juggling competing basic needs. From survey responses, households with children under the age of 18 are more likely to experience food insecurity. Of the participants with children under the age of 18, 84.3% experienced any food insecurity and 53.7% experienced pronounced food insecurity. During early childhood development, when access to nutritional meals determines a person’s health outcome, it is vital for families to have access to healthy food options.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

16

GRAPH 1: ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN FOOD INSECURITY AND RACE

PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING FOOD INSECURITY Latino Latio

Black

White

85% 83%

77%

BBLACK LACK

LATIO LATINO

W HITE WHITE

FOOD INSECURITY AND RACE Race and ethnicity are strong indicators of food insecurity. People of color in Auburn experience the highest rate of pronounced food insecurity. In Auburn, Blacks/African Americans experience the highest rate of pronounced food insecurity at 64.1%. (p=0.001). When determining the average food insecurity score by race, a calculation that averages the number of times a person said they were never, sometimes, or often food insecure, results showed that the Black/African and Latino community experience food insecurity at a much higher frequency then white communities. Black/African and Latino respondents had an average food insecurity score of 5.6 compared to White average score of 4.7.

This is statistically significant (p=0.029). While other racial groups may also experience food insecurity at similar frequencies at the Black/African and Latino community, due to a small sample size, results remain inconclusive.

TABLE 3. AVERAGE FOOD INSECURITY SCORES BY RACE N

Average Food Insecurity Scores

Arab

5

2.4

Other Native American Pacific Islander Asian

13 15 16 17

3.2 3.8 5.4 4.1

Race

Race Multiple Ethnicities Black Latino White

N

Average Food Insecurity Scores

19

5.4

41 150 386

6.4 5.4 4.7

HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN Auburn households with children experience extremely high rates of food insecurity. Of surveyed households with children under the age of 18, 84.3% experience food insecurity and 53.7% experienced pronounced food insecurity, compared to 12.2% of households without children. Research shows that Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

17

nutrient consumption from gestation to a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second year and food insecurity can permanently determine the function of organs, cognitive ability, and behavior for a lifetime.32 33 It is crucial that children receive the proper foods and nutrients to grow and thrive.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP) AND FOOD INSECURITY The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal program29 that is designed to assist low-income individuals and families in obtaining nutritious foods to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

However, despite receiving food assistance, 91.3% of respondents who receive food assistance still experience food insecurity and 76% experienced pronounced food insecurity. When asked why this is happening, some individuals reported receiving as little as $8 in food assistance, enough to buy 3 healthy produce items for a month. For respondents who are ineligible for SNAP or who do not know they are eligible, 74.3% experience food insecurity and 41% experience pronounced food insecurity.

The survey found that 58.7% of families in Auburn who get food from the food bank receive food assistance and 6.8% of families who do not receive food assistance go to the food bank (p<0.001).

Despite the availability of food assistance programs, some individuals who do experience food insecurity will not use the food bank or enroll in food assistance due to shame or feelings of unworthiness. Others mentioned they did not want to take away food from other who they knew had it worse.

TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED YES TO USING FOOD ASSISTANCE AND FOOD BANKS Food Insecurity

Pronounced Food Insecurity

Food Assistance Receiving Food Assistance Not Receiving Food Assistance

91.3% (p<0.001)

75% (p<0.001)

74.3% (p<0.001)

41% (p<0.001)

Food Bank Use Using Food Bank Not Using Food Bank

95% (p<0.001)

78% (p<0.001)

76% (p<0.001)

45.6% (p<0.001)

DISCUSSION BEYOND BEHAVIOR CHANGE Economics, social conditions, and the environment have a greater effect on a personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s susceptibility to diabetes than their choice in lifestyle.18 Most people are aware of the foods they should eat; yet economic, social, and geographic barriers keep them from purchasing the food that is best for their family. Of the individuals surveyed, when asked if access to fresh fruits and vegetables is an important part of keeping their community healthy, 99.7% of respondents said this was true. Many residents said if the barriers of time, location, and cost were eliminated, they would purchase more healthy foods.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

18

Families in Auburn want to purchase healthier foods, however due to various challenges, they are unable to.

Looking closer at the economics of food supply over the last two decades, the cost of less-energy dense foods, such as fresh produce, have increased faster that the consumer price index. Comparatively highenergy foods, such as fats and sugars, have increased much slower than the consumer price index.

Therefore, diet and weight gain can be explained by income disparities.34 65.6% of survey respondents said that they purchase lower quality food than is preferred. When households have limited income to spend on food, the cheapest option is energy-dense foods. While education, outreach and community leadership are still important components of ensuring that communities are eating healthy, residents first need to have access to fruits and vegetables.

Washington CAN! has witnessed the success of communities eating healthier food options when these barriers are removed. For the past three years, Washington CAN! carried out the Good Food Bag (GFB) program with the help of our organizational partners. The Good Food Bag is a $10 bag of Auburn-grown organic produce that we distribute to community members for $5. Washington CAN! has established distribution sites where communities already gather, such as a Saint Mathews Episcopal Church, the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) clinic, the Auburn Senior Activity Center, Pioneer Elementary School, Orion Industries, Messiah Lutheran Church, and the Auburn YMCA. Our goal of the program is to eliminate some of the barriers communities experience in accessing food. During the third season of the GFB program, Washington CAN! distributed 437 GFBs to over 180 different households during a 14week period. Many families were able to pick-up a GFB during their weekly routine, increasing access to a variety of nutrient-dense organic fruits and vegetables. And all GFB recipients were able to support local farmers in east Auburn at the Seattle Tilth Farm Works.

ECONOMICS Though over half of survey respondents work over 21 hours a week, they are unable to afford all of their basic needs. One third of respondents run out of money to buy food and these results are not just confined to the unemployed and those on social security disability. Thirty-six percent of the individuals who work 21-40 hours a week run out of money to buy food, a quarter of those who work 41-60 hours a week, and 41.7% of those who work over 60 hours run out of food in a week. The University of Washington’s self-sufficiency standard explains many of the reasons for the high food insecurity in Auburn residents: one fifth of respondents choose basic needs over food and close to one third choose food over basic needs. Even though people are employed full-time, because they are a low-wage worker they still to make the hard decision of what basic needs to afford.

For individuals who experience disabilities due to work or other health conditions and receive social security, 73.5% run out of money for food. Because many individuals who have disabilities rely on medication due to their condition, a large percentage of their social security checks are spent on medications or doctor’s appointments. Other people have conditions that require a restrictive diet to keep them out of the hospital. The low social security checks for many Auburn residents mean that they have to put their health in more danger through the choices they are forced to make.

“Inadequate nutrition all too often is associated with inadequate shelter, lack of healthcare and bad education, and poverty is at the core of all.” 36 – Michael Greenberg

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

19

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES Of the individuals surveyed in Auburn, nearly a quarter receives food assistance. However, the amount of money given is not enough to feed a family. For survey respondents who receive food assistance, 91.3% experience food insecurity and an additional 9% of survey respondents experience food insecurity but are not eligible for receive food assistance. With the budget cuts that have reduced SNAP funding starting in 1981, many families have been hit hard and have increasingly experienced hunger.35 As government cut back on food assistance programs, private food banks were forced to fill in the gap.

During the 2008 recession, the need for food assistance spiked significantly. Before 2008, food pantries received free food from the state and federal government.36 However, demand for food has since surpassed the supply provided by governments. To ensure their families still have enough to eat despite SNAP budget cuts, many in Auburn rely on the food bank. Of the quarter of recipients who receive food assistance, over half still supplement their food budgets from the food bank. Because federal programs do not take into account the location, applicant age, or number of children a family has, many Auburn residents are still in need of food assistance but do not qualify for SNAP. People who do qualify do not receive enough assistance to survive. As income inequity continues to grow and families are unable to support their basic needs, the Auburn Food Bank will continue to see a growing number of recipients, overburdening the organization, which already has a high clientele.

FIGURE 3 KING COUNTY'S BUILDING EQUITY & OPPORTUNITY37

Colorado Charitable Crop Donation Act May 30, 2014, at Adobe House Farm in Domingo, Governor John Hickenlooper signed House Bill 14-1119 (Tax Credit for Donating Food to Charitable Organizations)45

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

20

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

21

RECOMMENDATIONS The Auburn Mayor and City Council must take action both to address Auburn residents’ immediate need to access healthy foods and to change the long-term structures that create barriers to healthy foods and lead to disparate health outcomes. In order to effectively improve both the quality and length of life for Auburn residents, elected officials, city and state agency officials, service providers, and community leaders must jointly address the variety of factors that inhibit people’s ability to purchase and prepare healthy foods. Below are a list of recommendations that would reduce food insecurity and improve the health of the residents of Auburn.

1. DECREASE LOCATIONAL CHALLENGES TO FOOD ACCESS The location where healthy foods can be acquired plays a large role in creating barriers to access for low-income communities. Constraints on the cost and time of transportation for low-income residents are often deciding factors when choosing where to purchase food and what type of food to purchase. To address locational challenges, it is important to increase healthy food retail, retail outlets that sell high quality, healthy food options.38 Washington CAN! recommends that the City of Auburn consider the following: 





Auburn Good Food Bag: Ensure the Good Food Bag Program remains accessible to Auburn residents for years to come. This program brings healthy and affordable produce to sites that are convenient and comfortable for low-income community members. In 2018, Washington CAN! will no longer have the capacity to support the Good Food Bag. However, with financial support and a city coordinator, the Good Food Bag would be sustainable in the long-term.

Free Shuttle Services: Develop partnerships with low-income housing and service providers to establish free shuttle busses from low-income neighborhoods across the city to the Auburn Farmers Market.

Food Access Assessment: Conducts food access assessments to understand where the areas of highest need are and to involve individuals most directly affected by food access into decisionmaking positions.

In the long term, Washington CAN! recommends: 



Zoning/Land Use Codes: Modify zoning and land use code options and offering other incentives to attract grocery stores and food markets into low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color.

Creating Market Gardens: Allow Auburn residents to obtain permits to sell fresh produce and other healthy foods from their homes. This would allow residents the opportunity to grow fresh produce in their gardens that could be sold to neighbors in the area along with other items such as teas, dehydrated produce, honey, and spice in an unlicensed home kitchen. Market gardens would provide supplemental income to individuals, increase access to healthy foods, especially in areas with few healthy food options, and create opportunities for community interactions.

The City of Auburn could both identify where food deserts exist and what can be done to attract grocery stores and food markets to establish businesses in these areas. Using a calculation which measures the number of healthy and less healthy food retailers within an area, the City of Auburn can assess and prioritize regions most in need of healthy food options. Once locations are identified, ensuring that locations are also close to public transit, the City of Auburn can work on the following solutions to address food disparities39: Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

22

2. SUPPORTING ACCESS TO LOCALLY GROWN, ORGANIC PRODUCE AND INCREASING HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL In order to cut costs to afford other necessities, low-income communities often cannot afford locally grown, organic produce. There are a resulting myriad of adverse health, economic, and environmental impacts due to the inequities of who is able to afford high-quality produce. Low-income people often have to choose less nutritious, high-caloric foods because of costs that lead to the higher prevalence of health conditions like heart disease and diabetes. Lowquality foods often need to be transported over vast distances leading to a much larger carbon footprint and the degradation, if not complete elimination, of local food economies.

Healthy Food Retail Includes: supermarkets, smaller grocery stores, corner stores, convenience stores, farmers’ markets, food cooperatives, mobile produce vendors, and other venders that sell affordable, nutritious, and healthy food38

Washington CAN! recommends that the City of Auburn consider the following: 





Healthier Convenience Stores: Incentivizing convenience stores to sell healthier, culturally appropriate foods or establishing farm stands in lower-income communities. Before bringing healthier foods into an area, it is important for communities to provide input into what healthy foods are desirable. This is essential to gain community buy-in and to ensure there will be an increased consumption of the healthy food items. Along with incentives, the City could provide technical assistance to food retailers to help increase inventory of healthy food options. Some food retail owners may just need assistance in identifying new inventive and healthy foods to sell. These solutions require minimal infrastructure and will also boost local economy by supporting local farmers and storeowners.

Labeling and Celebrating Locally Grown Produce: For grocery stores already stocking locally grown produce, the City could help publicize local farms at food businesses and provide a rating on how well a grocery store sources local produce. While grocery stores will need to source produce from farther distances during the winter months, providing the origins of produce will increase the knowledge about farming operations, food seasonality, and the growth of food.

Identify underutilized land for food production: o Community Gardens: Create community gardens in public spaces with an emphasis on communities with little access to public transit or without food markets nearby. In conjunction create a neighborhood committee of individuals who live within a mile of the garden that will lead, manage, and design community gardens. Each committee would determine the type of produce to plant, would allocate roles and responsibilities of the garden, and would distribute produce amongst individuals involved.

AUBURN COMMUNITY MEMBERS AT A TILTH Doing so is a cost-effective way to get ALLIANCE FARM TOUR healthy produce into affected Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

23

communities by using public land.

Demonstration Farms: Demonstration farms serve the purpose of educating communities around gardening, farming, nutrition, and landscaping o Edible Landscaping: Grow produce on public agency grounds. Growing berries, fruit, and other produce will provide beautiful landscaping that will also reduce water consumption and soil erosion.

In the long term, Washington CAN! recommends: o





Charitable Crop Donation: Create a policy that provides 25-percent tax credits to local producers that donate wholesale value of food for food banks, the Good Food Bag program, churches that provide community meals, and pantries. Creating a system that promotes more local farmers will boost the economy of Auburn by providing more jobs and will increase local pride and morale due to self-sufficiency.

Sustainability Goals: Create a goal as a city to grow and process 20% of food purchased in Auburn

BOISE TRANSFORMED A BURNT DOWN STRIP MALL INTO A MARKET FOR IMMIGRANT ENTREPRENEURS Boise city planners and developers worked together to transform a burned out strip mall into Boise International Market, an entrepreneur incubator which houses 27 immigrant and refugee owned small businesses in Boise’s “The Bench” neighborhood.

Boise International Market helps immigrant entrepreneurs move beyond the starting line through assistant in securing affordable space, and the opportunity to start business at low rates and with significantly low risk.

MicroEnterprise Training & Assistance, a Boise-based nonprofit program works with the small business owners to connect them with micro-lending resources, business development training, mentoring, marketing and design professionals, and assistance in navigating permitting and licensing.

Boise International Market has become a multi-functional community gathering place. The Treasure Valley region’s foreign born population includes over 42,000 people from over 100 different countries. BIM hosts frequent cultural celebrations and events, allowing for cultural exchange and celebration as well as intelligence-sharing.  

Adaptive reuse can transform blighted or abandoned places into vibrant public space and valuable resources for economic and community development.

Boise’s poverty rate is 15.6%.46

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

24

3. EXPAND INSTITUTIONAL PROCUREMENT OF HEALTHY FOOD OPTIONS Institutions include government offices, schools, university campuses, jails, faith-based organizations, senior centers, and hospital systems.

Washington CAN! recommends that the City of Auburn consider the following: 



Healthy Vending Machine Policies: To increase nutritious choices in vending machines, Auburn can adopt a vending policy that would require all vending machines to contain 50% of all items to be healthful food and beverages.

Increase Farm-to-Institution Programs: in schools and other institutions, increase procurement of healthy, local foods to increase supply and demand of healthy foods.

THE AUBURN GOOD FOOD BAG AT THE AUBURN YMCA

4. PROTECT AND EXPANDING THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP) There are 19,966 Auburn residents who depend on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) to make ends meet and purchase food.40 As is, the federal and state programs are not enough to cover the needs and address the life expectancy gap between Auburn and other cities in the region.

We need to expand SNAP in order to close the life expectancy gap and eliminate other health inequities. The City Council and Mayor of Auburn need to take active roles in advocating for this expansion at the county, state, and federal levels.

Recommendation: 

 

Expand outreach for enrollment: Many families do not realize they are eligible for federal Food and Nutrition Services Programs. By increasing outreach at health fairs, door-to-door outreach, at schools, and other venues, the City can help families enroll in food assistance Expand EBT Technology for healthy food retail: Assist small healthy food retails in obtaining EBT technology so they are able to accept SNAP and WIC benefits Advocate for state and federal change: Low-income residents at the border of qualifying incomes and circumstances often experience decreased self-sufficiency as their income increases and they no longer qualify for safety net programs. The City of Auburn should create a subsidy for residents between 200% and 400% of the poverty line in order to soften the impacts of the currently inadequate state and federal programs.

5. DECREASE THE COST OF BASIC NEEDS SO FAMILIES CAN AFFORD HEALTHY FOOD As the cost of housing rises in the region, Auburn residents are increasingly faced with the tough decision of which necessities to give up. The Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance estimates that 45% of Auburn households are cost-burdened, meaning that thee is need for 12,135 new affordable housing units.41 Auburn’s homeless population increased 20% since 2014. As such, housing is Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

25

understandably the highest priority need, often eschewing healthy foods for calorie-dense foods in order to save costs. While these choices keep people safe in the short-term, the long-term health implications are one of the leading reasons for Auburn’s poor life expectancy.

Washington CAN! recommends that the City of Auburn consider the following: 







Create the Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance: The city must adopt a healthy housing standards supported by both community and municipal enforcement. The city should strengthen the Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance (RRIO) by placing building code violators on a more accountable “3 for 3” inspection cycle. When a landlord fails a health and safety inspection, the property must be placed on a 3 year inspection schedule for 3 inspection cycles. When a code violation is present in one unit it must trigger inspections in all units of the complex. All buildings owned by the landlord must be identified for tenant outreach by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (DCI), who must utilize community based partners to survey the targeted buildings for RRIO violations. Tenant s must be brought into the inspection process by requiring building inspectors to share their inspection reports directly to tenants.

Create Just Cause Eviction Protection: Currently, tenants have few to no protections from unjustified evictions. Landlords can terminate month-to-month tenancies with as little as 20 days’ notice and no reason given. A Just Cause Eviction Protection would require landlords state an acceptable reason, or “just cause, for the termination of tenancy. This protection would promote greater housing stability for Auburn residents for tenants both under current leases and on month-to-month agreements.

Limit Up-Front Costs: Tenants cannot afford high upfront move-in costs, typically paying first and last months’ rent, deposit, plus other related move-in fees all at once to secure housing.

This creates an often-insurmountable financial hurdle for tenants or people experiencing homelessness who could otherwise afford the monthly rent. Fees and deposits must be limited to the equivalent of one month’s rent, and up-front costs must be broken out into a payment plan. Further, because paying tenant screening fees for each unit a prospective renter applies to can be a huge financial burden, landlords must be required to accept portable tenant screening reports.

Prohibit Landlords From Inquiring About Prospective Tenants’ Immigration Status: Many background checks used by landlords require social security numbers. Rental applications with such requirements allows landlords to discriminate against undocumented immigrants, thus forcing many in the undocumented community to have to find alternative forms of housing or settle for renting substandard housing when they could otherwise afford to live in better conditions. Other states, such as California, prohibit rental applications that inquire about one’s immigration status (https://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/propertymanagement/tenant-screening/how-to-screen-a-tenant-who-does-not-have-a-social-securitynumber). Thus, rental applications in California exclude the use of Social Security numbers.

Landlords are not able to use the rental application process to discriminate against people based on their immigration status.

In the long-term, Washington CAN! Recommends the following to the City of Auburn: 

Affordable Housing: Significant investments into building more affordable housing units in transit oriented communities. Introducing significantly more housing stock will alleviate the pressures of increasing demand in the region, and specifically building housing for low-income people will protect those already living in Auburn.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

26









Invest in Affordable Housing Production and Preservation: There is no doubt that there is a severe shortage of affordable housing in Seattle. We need our elected officials to invest in permanent affordable housing that meets the needs of vulnerable communities. We can accomplish this goal both by prioritizing the development of affordable housing as well as the preservation of our current affordable housing stock. When affordable private units are up for sale, either the city or a non-profit housing provider needs to have an option of buying it in order to keep rents affordable Locate and Develop Housing Near Grocers: Stabilizing the rising cost of rent for low-income people will ensure that residents have the income to purchase healthy foods and will improve food access.

Affordable Housing Production through Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning: In order to create affordable housing units within new market-rate housing developments, all residential developments need to require a reasonable number of units for households with incomes 50 percent AMI and below, and 30 percent AMI and below. These standards need to be mandatory for all residential developments.

Rent Stabilization: Currently, landlords can—and do—profit gouge by raising rents arbitrarily.

Even though Seattle has raised its minimum wage, and there is an initiative on the November ballot to raise Washington’s minimum wage, these financial gains will be lost if housing costs continue to soar. Rent increases should be tied to the cost of inflation, actual cost of building improvements, and tax increases—rather than a landlord’s whim. Rent stabilization rules should apply to every rental property.

LIMITATIONS During survey collection and analysis several limitations were identified that may need further consideration: Survey Questions Questions around single-parent households and the distance from the survey respondent’s home to the grocery store were not specific and resulted in answers with various metrics. For example, when asked about distance from the grocery store, individuals answered in both minutes and mileage. While the data showed the challenges in grocery store access, the question did not yield a consistent measure and the range of answers did not specify whether an individual had access to private or public transportation. The survey also did not include a question around education attainment, a strong indicator of food insecurity.

Survey Administration Due to the staff’s limited Spanish proficiency, a large population of Spanish speakers are missing from the survey results. Some households had children who were able to translate the survey for their parents, however, this was not the case in all instances.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

27

CITATIONS 1.

J M. U.S. Department of Labor. The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous. http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/osha.htm. Accessed September 30, 2014.

2.

| Human Development Reports. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2014-report. Accessed January 26, 2015.

3.

Belluck P. Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Life Expectancy Being Cut Short by Obesity. New York Times. March 17, 2015.

4.

Bernstein L. U.S. life expectancy declines for the first time since 1993. Washington Post.

December 8, 2016.

5.

Xu J, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Arias E, Ph D. Mortality in the United States, 2015. Hyattsville; 2016.

6.

King County. Equity and Social Justice Annual Report. 2012;(August):1-32. http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/equity.aspx.

7.

Public Health-Seattle & King County. King County City Health Profile Auburn. Seattle, WA; 2012.

8.

Public Health-Seattle & King County. King County City Health Profile Auburn. Seattle, WA; 2016.

9.

U.S. Census Bureau. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE UNITED STATES 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Auburn; 2015.

10.

Minnesota Department of Health. Introduction - Public Health in Minnesota - CHS Admin Handbook - Minnesota Dept. of Health.; 2013.

11.

Wilkinson, Richard and Marmot M. The Solid Facts. Denmark; 2003.

12.

World Health Organization. Social Determinants of Health. 2015. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/. Accessed September 25, 2014.

13.

Drewnowski, A., & Darmon N. The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82:265-273.

14.

Pearce D. The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State 2014. Seattle, WA; 2015.

15.

Aleem Z. 1 Map Shows How Many Hours You Need to Work Minimum Wage to Rent an Apartment in Any State. Policy Mic. 2015. https://mic.com/articles/120428/1-map-shows-howmany-hours-you-need-to-work-minimum-wage-to-rent-an-apartment-in-any-state#.0OBgByNi4.

Accessed December 18, 2016.

16.

New York State Nurses Association. Raising the minimum wage is a matter of public health. 2015.

17.

Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. Neighborhood Environments: Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(1):74-81.e10. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.09.025.

18.

Powell LM, Slater S, Mirtcheva D, Bao Y, Chaloupka FJ. Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2007;44:189-195. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.08.008.

19.

King County. King County Equity and Social Justice Annual Report. 2015;(August).

20.

Singh GK, Miller BA, Miller BA. Health , Life Expectancy , and Mortality Patterns Among Immigrant Populations in the United States. Can J Public Heal. 2004;95(3):114-121.

21.

Murnan F, Park A. Understanding King County Racial Inequities. Seattle; 2015. https://www.uwkc.org/wp-content/uploads/ftp/RacialDisparityDataReport_Nov2015.pdf.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

28

Accessed July 24, 2017.

22.

Mode NA, Evans MK, Zonderman AB. Race , Neighborhood Economic Status, Income Inequality and Mortality. PLoS One. 2016;10(1371):1-14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154535.

23.

Kawachi I, Daniels N, Robinson DE. Health Disparities By Race And Class: Why Both Matter.

Health Aff. 2005;2(2):343-352. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.2.343.

24.

Russell L. Fact Sheet : Health Disparities by Race and Ethnicity.; 2010.

25.

Jung NM, Bairros FS De, Pattussi MP, Pauli S, Neutzling MB. Gender differences in the prevalence of household food insecurity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2016:115. doi:10.1017/S1368980016002925.

26.

Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Pay Equity & Discrimination. 2016. http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination. Accessed December 18, 2016.

27.

Martin MA, Lippert A. Feeding Her Children, but Risking Her Health: The Intersection of Gender, Household Food Insecurity and Obesity. Natl Inst Heal. 2013;74(11):1754-1764. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.013.Feeding.

28.

Brown TNT, Romero AP, Gates GJ. Food Insecurity and SNAP Participation in the LGBT Community | Williams Institute. Williams Inst. 2016. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/lgbtfood-insecurity-2016/. Accessed December 28, 2016.

29.

Gates GJ. Food Insecurity and SNAP ( Food Stamps ) Participation in LGBT Communities. Los Angeles; 2014.

30.

James S, Herman J, Rankin S, Keisling M, Mottet L, Anafi M. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington DC; 2016.

31.

Mayor’s Task Force on Homelessness. http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/community_services/Mayor_s_Task_Force_on_Homelessne ss.htm. Accessed April 25, 2017.

32.

Films Media Group. The Nine Months That Made You: Pregnancy and Human Development.; 2011. http://avod.films.com.ezproxy.spl.org:2048/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=17150&xtid=48258.

33.

City of Bellevue Parks and Community Services Department, City of Renton, City of Seattle Human Services Department, King County Department of Community & Human Services, Public Health-Seattle & King County, The Seattle Foundation UW of KC. Communities Count. 2016. http://www.communitiescount.org/index.php?page=about. Accessed December 18, 2016.

34.

Truong KD SR. Weight gain trends across sociodemographic groups in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(9):1602-1606.

35.

Snap to Health. The History of SNAP. 2010. http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/the-history-ofsnap/. Accessed December 19, 2016.

36.

Greenberg M. Food Pantries , Poverty , and Social Justice. Am J Public Health.

2010;100(11):2021-2022. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.201848.

37.

Building Equity & Opportunity. Seattle; 2015. http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-socialjustice/~/media/B102A4C8AAE440F1A79BCE76986E80F5.ashx?la=en. Accessed July 24, 2017.

38.

Mason M. Food System Policies and Population Health: Moving Toward Collective Impact in Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

29

Denver. Denver, CO; 2014. www.denvergov.org/deh. Accessed July 25, 2017.

39.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Census Tract Level State Maps of the Modi Fi Ed Retail Food Environment Index ( mRFEI ).; 2011.

40.

Population Clients Use Rate Expenditures Per Client Expenditures. 2014. http://clientdata.rda.dshs.wa.gov/Services/GetStateClientSvcsByAge?fiscalyear=2015&agegroup =All Ages&geotype=City&geoname=Auburn&output=pdf. Accessed July 24, 2017.

41.

AUBURN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Part I. Housing Needs &amp; Characteristics Assessment ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT CITY OF AUBURN HOUSING NEEDS &amp; CHARACTERISTICS ASSESSMENT. 2014. http://www.auburnwa.gov/Assets/PCD/AuburnWA/Docs/2015+Comp+Plan+Visioning++Imagine+Auburn/Appendix+B+-+Auburn+Housing+Needs+and+Characteristics+Assessment.pdf.

Accessed July 24, 2017.

42.

US EPA CCD. International Impacts & Adaptation. 2013. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/international.html. Accessed April 13, 2015.

43.

Balk G. In King County, your address may tell you how long you’ll live | The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times. 2016. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/in-king-county-youraddress-may-tell-you-how-long-youll-live/. Accessed July 24, 2017.

44.

Coleman-Jensen A, Gregory C, Rabbitt M. Definitions of Food Security. United States Dep Agric.

2016. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-theus/definitions-of-food-security/. Accessed July 24, 2017.

45.

Colorado Charitable Crop Donation Act. Hunger Free Color. 2017. https://www.hungerfreecolorado.org/policy-and-advocacy/the-colorado-charitable-cropdonation-act/. Accessed July 25, 2017.

46.

Keblas J. Boise Transformed a Burnt Down Strip Mall into a Market for Immigrant Entrepreneurs – City Inspired. City Inspired. 2017. http://www.cityinspired.com/boise-transforms-burnt-downstrip-mall-into-market-for-immigrant-entrepreneurs/. Accessed July 24, 2017.

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

30

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: FOOD JUSTICE SURVEY 1. True or False: Access to fresh fruits and vegetables is an important part of keeping our communities healthy.

2. What is your current employment status? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Work less than 20 hours a week Work 21 – 40 hours a week Work 41 – 60 hours a week Work more than 60 hours a week My work hours vary from I am currently unemployed I am unable to work due to disability I am retired

to

a week ___ on Social Security Disability ___ on Social Security

3. From your home, how many minutes does it take to get to work?

0-20 minutes

20-40 minutes

40-60 minutes

over an hour

Only ask questions 4 and 5 if the interviewee does not work.

4. If you do not work, is there anyone in your household who does?

YES

NO

5. If YES, how many hours a week does that person work? a. b. c. d. e.

Work less than 20 hours a week Work 21 – 40 hours a week Work 41 – 60 hours a week Work more than 60 hours a week Work hours vary from to

a week

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

31

6. What is your family’s weekly income? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Less than $100 $100-200 $201-350 $351-600 $601-850 $851-1,000 $1,001-1,500 $1,501-$2,000 More than $2,000

7. My family and I get food from the following places (choose all that apply): ● ● ● ● ●

Supermarket/grocery store Farmer’s market Food bank or pantry School meals program Other:

8. How far away is the above food source from your home?

9. Each week, how often do you eat foods prepared away from home?

0-1 time

2-4 times

5+ times

10. Does your family receive EBT or Food Stamp benefits?

If yes, how much do you receive monthly?

11. Does your family buy food of lower quality than you prefer because of cost: OFTEN

SOMETIMES

NEVER

12. Do you eat the same thing for several days in a row because that’s what you have, and there’s no money to buy more: OFTEN

SOMETIMES

NEVER

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

32

13. Do you or your family worry about food running out before you get money to buy more: OFTEN

SOMETIMES

NEVER

14. Do you or your family run out of money for food: OFTEN

SOMETIMES

NEVER

15. Do you or your family members skip meals because you can’t afford enough food: OFTEN

SOMETIMES

NEVER

16. Do you ever have to choose having enough food over paying for other needs such as: (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY): Medicine Doctor’s appointments Health insurance premium Rent Clothing Other:

17. Do you go without food so you can afford any of the following for yourself or your family: Medicine Doctor’s appointments Health insurance premium Rent Clothing Other:

Please describe how cost affects your food choices:

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

33

18. What is your source of health insurance: Work (own employment or through family member) Medicaid (Apple Health) Medicare Washington Health Benefit Exchange (Obamacare) Uninsured Other:

19. Although many in Auburn rely on Food Stamps and WIC to feed their families, every session we still see legislators voting to slash billions from these programs. Do you think this is right?

YES NO

20. Notes: Demographic Questions

Name: ________________________________________________________________________ Phone:

_______________________________________________________________________

Email:

_______________________________________________________________________

Address:

_______________________________________________________________________

City/State/Zip: ________________________________________________________________________

Age:

_______

Race/Ethnicity (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY)

Black/African American Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

34

Asian/Asian American Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Latino Native American Arab/Arab American White Other: ____________________________________________

Gender Identity: Female Male Other:_____________________________________________

Number of people in household:

a. Adults (not children): b. Children under 18: c. Children over 18:

Growing in Solidarity Examining Food Inequities in Auburn

35