2020 CFD Evaluation Debrief

Evaluation Goals1. Demographics & COVID-19 Impact

2. Process Evaluation: Registration and Drive-thru/delivery

3. Product satisfaction: Quantity, quality, variety, ease of making meals

4. Participant comfort level

5. Comparison of MFP and CFD

6. Technology – application and satisfaction

7. Story collecting & Relationship building

2020 CFD Summary March-May

•18 distributions•More than 7,700 households served, resulting in more than 23,000 requests for food•215 coordinated deliveries•Nearly 712,000 pounds of food

Survey Participation•Total Unique Households: 4,979•Call-em-all: 4,162 households•787 completed surveys = 19% response rate•Drawing for a $20 grocery store gift card

CFD Representation

14%

11%

2%

14% 14%13%

15%14%

12%

7% 7%

Bath:Steuben

Fairgrounds

Painted Post:Victory

HighwayWesleyan

Church

Hornell: HighSchool

WhitneyPoint: High

School

Binghamton:SUNY

Broome

Windsor:High School

Dryden:TompkinsCortland

CommunityCollege

Horseheads:Chemung

Fairgrounds

Owego:Elementary

School

WatkinsGlen: Race

Track

WatkinsGlen:

SchuylerHighway

Department

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Household Demographics◦52% have at least 1 person at higher risk for serious illness

from COVID-19 due to age or a serious, long-term health problem.◦55% do NOT participate in SNAP◦41% NEVER received food from another emergency food

program◦Pre-COVID Income:• 37% earned less than $20,000• 30% earned $20,000-$40,000• 21% earned more than $40,000

RegistrationPROS

• Fast & Easy

• Excellent Customer Service

CONS

• Online: Finding form, completing & confirmation process

0.39%0.20%

0.64% 0.64% 0.80%2%

4% 2%

14%18%

10%

83%

76%

88%

Ease of registering Amount of time it took Helpfulness of the person Ispoke with (if by phone)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1 (worst) 2 3 4 5 (best)

Drive-thru ProcessPROS

• Organized

• Fast

• Friendly & helpful volunteers

CONS

• Wait Time

0.8%4%

0.5% 0.4%0.6%

4%

0.6% 0.9%

5%

11%

3% 4%

18%

26%

9%11%

74%

52%

85%83%

Convenience of thelocation

Amount of time ittook

Helpfulness ofworkers/volunteers

Delivery process (ifapplicable)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

1 (worst) 2 3 4 5 (best)

Perishable FoodPROS

• Good quality and selection

• Access to fresh produce

CONS

• Poor quality produce

• Concern about container dates

• Households who do not eat pork

0.6%

0.3%0.5% 0.4%

2% 1% 1% 2%

10%7%

10% 9%

31%

23%

29%31%

57%

69%

58% 57%

Quality of  food Amount of food Variety of food Ease of making meals

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

1 (worst) 2 3 4 5 (best)

Food BoxesPROS

• Nice variety of items to make meals

CONS

• Too many beans, peas and lentils

• Concern about container dates

1.0%

0.7% 0.8% 0.7%0.9% 1.0% 2.2% 2.9%

11% 9%

14%11%

32%

26% 28%31%

55%

63%

55% 55%

Quality of  food Amount of food Variety of food Ease of making mealswith the food in the

box

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

1 (worst) 2 3 4 5 (best)

Process SummaryRating of Good/Best

Registration: 94-98% in all areas

Drive-Thru/Delivery: 92-94%

• Except Wait Time: 78%

Perishable Food: 87-88%

• Except Amount of Food: 92%

Food Boxes: 83-89%

Feelings about CFD

Vast majority are very comfortable

Some embarrassment or apprehension:

• Seeing people you know, idea of needing a hand out

• Majority felt the team and setup helped them feel better

90%

9%

1%

Yes, definitely Somewhat Not at all

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Were you comfortable participating in this program?

MFP V CFD: 53% attended MFPs

26%22%

19%

27% 25%

16% 16%20%

31%

39%

21%26%

22%17% 17%

25%

43%39%

59%

47%

53%

67% 67%

56%

Convenience of location Amount of time spent Quality of  food Amount of food Variety of food Ease of making meals withthe food

Helpfulness of theworkers/volunteers

My overall comfortattending

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

The Mobile Food Distribution was better The Community Food Distribution was better They were the same

Themes1. Time ◦ CFD is faster compared to some MFPs because the registration process

assures people do not have to arrive early.

2. Comfort◦ CFD allows people to remain in their vehicle. Seniors, people with disabilities

and people with children all indicated that this is preferable.

3. Choice◦ MFP allows people to pick what they prefer and know they can use.

Technology1. Pantry Trak

• CFD Site Locations

• Contact Information

2. Call-em-all• MFP Cancellations

• CFD Reminders

• Pantry Notifications

• Survey Notifications

3. Website• Online Food Finder

• CFD Online Registrations

4. Grasshopper CFD Phone Registrations

5. Social Media Facebook posts

6. Survey Monkey Online survey platform

7. ArcGIS• CFD Site Locations

• Comparison to MFP and Pantry Locations

26%

25%

24%

16%

1%

0.71%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Word of Mouth

Social Media

Call-em-all

Website

Radio/TV

211

How they HeardOnline Registrations Only = 4971

Phase 2 RecommendationsExisting CFDs1. Offer choice/consider household size

2. Education on container dates ◦ Flyers at June 12 SUNY Broome distribution

3. Monitor produce quality ◦ Anticipate less of an issue now that we are receiving Grade 1 produce through Nourish NY

and USDA

4. Registration process: emphasize arriving during operating hours to reduce wait◦ Updating phone script

Phase 2 RecommendationsMFP Drive-thru1. Continue drive-thru and pre-registration processes

2. Prioritize Western Steuben County◦ July schedule includes Rathbone and Avoca MFP locations

3. Coordinate delivery options

Technology1. Formalize Call-em-all reminder schedule

◦ Saturday & Tuesday notifications for Wed and Fri CFDs - respectively

2. Continue to prioritize technology updates and training