A study of access to nutritious and affordable food

              USDA A Study of Access to
Nutritious and Affordable United States
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Service
Office of
Analysis and
Evaluation
Food
April 1998
5rf f*-OilM%I
A Study of Access to Nutritious and
Affordable Food
April, 1998
Submitted by:
CRP, Incorporated
4201 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 503
Washington, DC 20008
Submitted to:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Contract Management Branch
Room 914
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Project Director: Carolyn R. Pegram Project Officers: Sharron Cristofar
Kilolo Kijakazi
This study was conducted under FNS Contract #53-3198-5-080 with the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, under the authority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended. Points of view or
opinions stated in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Food and Consumer Service.
USDA non-discrimination Statement:
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age. disability political
beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape. etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202)
720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director. Office of Civil Rights. Room 326-
W, Whitten Building, 14"' and Independence Avenue, S.W.. Washington. DC 20250-9410 or call
(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CRP. Incorporated wishes to acknowledge, with sincere appreciation, the assistance
received from Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) staff in the preparation of this report. The
authors are deeply indebted to:
• Dr. Sharron Cristofar, Project Officer
• Dr. Kilolo Kijakazi, Project Officer
• Dr. Theodore Macaluso, Branch Chief
• Mrs. Bernice Cockrell, Contracting Officer
• Mr. Dayton J. Watkins. (Administrator. Rural Business - Cooperative Service)
• Mr. Wayne Stansbery, (Senior Loan Specialist. Rural Business - Cooperative
Service)
• Mr. Jim Jacobs. (Community Development Specialist. Rural EZ/EC Program)
Finally. CRP. Incorporated extends its thanks to those individuals who completed
interviews and the numerous non-profit and for-profit organizations that provided information and
materials in the development of the report.
rjHr
A STUDY OF ACCESS TO NUTRITIOUS AND AFFORDABLE FOOD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
In recent years, there has been concern that some communities do not have sufficient access
to quality food at reasonable prices. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which administers
the Federal food assistance programs, is particularly concerned with food access for households
that have limited resources. In these households, access plays an important role in obtaining a
nutritious diet.
FNS has undertaken several initiatives which address food access. The Agency funded a
study, released in 1992. which showed that it is possible for supermarkets to do well in low-income
communities and to improve access for the residents. In September 1995. FNS sponsored
a national Conference on Access to Food to present successful strategies for improving access and
to provide a forum for discussion. Speakers and guests were able to frame the issues, highlight
the link between access and economic development, and heighten awareness of the need to form
public/private partnerships to address the issue. FNS has also collected objective data on access
with a study on the availability of food stamp authorized retailers to households receiving these
benefits. The recently released findings showed that proximity to supermarkets and large grocery
stores that sell a wide range of reasonably-priced food was about the same for the low-income
population as the general population. However, the number of supermarkets and large grocery
stores was slightly lower in high-poverty urban areas and in rural areas. A second data collection
effort sponsored by FNS involved a national survey of low-income households that obtained the
households' perspective on their level of access to food. These findings will be released in 1998.
The current report is a descriptive study focusing on communities that identified access as
an issue. The report regards access as the availability of a variety of nutritious and affordable
foods from stores and markets that are well-maintained and that offer products reflecting the
cultural make-up of the community. The intent of this was to determine the types of strategies
these underserved communities employed to reduce or eliminate barriers to access and to assess
the effectiveness of each strategy. Information was obtained through an extensive review of the
literature and a survey of individuals with some expertise in food access. This report presents the
Findings of this research.
THE RESEARCH STUDY
FNS awarded a contract to CRP, Incorporated, in September 1995 to provide a descriptive
and exploratory examination of the factors related to this issue from a community empowerment
perspective. The following research questions guided this investigation:
li
• What types of strategies are being used to improve food access in underserved
urban and rural communities?
• What food access strategies work best in each of these environments?
• What are the critical factors that must be met for a strategy to succeed?
• Are there any strategies that do not work well in either rural or urban communities?
If so, why?
The purpose of this study was to extract useful perspectives from those who have been
working in the field of food access and have amassed substantial knowledge and experience. In
many ways, this analysis focused not only on the "hows" and "whys" of food access work being
done in selected communities across America but also on the conditions under which these efforts
must operate and to which they must respond. The information in this report is intended to be a
technical resource for community organizations, business persons, and public policy officials at
all levels of government who seek to ensure that all communities gain adequate and sustainable
access to nutritious and affordable food.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The approach of this study was qualitative in nature. Accordingly, the methods and
procedures included interviews and document review. These steps allowed for an exploratory
approach to be used in the research. The methodology utilized a two-pronged approach, including
an extensive review of the literature and a survey of a cross-section of persons with expert
knowledge about issues relating to food access.
The literature review resulted in the identification of those food access improvement
strategies noted as having the greatest significance for underserved communities. The survey
component of this study was designed to provide vital insights into the state of these food access
improvement strategies from experts active in and knowledgeable of the field. The 56 respondents
participating in this study constituted a purposive sample of nonprofit organization/agency
executives, federal government administrators, academicians, supermarket chain executives, local
government administrators, food policy advocates, association executives, and food industry
consultants. Their insights helped to delineate the most challenging barriers and effective solutions
to increasing underserved communities' access to food.
\l in
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In a number of urban and rural low-income communities throughout the United States,
access to affordable and nutritious food has become an issue of considerable social and economic
concern. The need to provide sufficient, nutritious, and affordable food to the families and
children living within these settings has led to the increasing visibility and prominence of this issue
in the public policy domain over the past three decades. Additionally, the process and problems
of food access have garnered the increasing attention of consumers and researchers in multiple
sectors, including government, business, and nonprofit organizations. Numerous studies have
been conducted that focus on various aspects of this issue This literature delineates the nature,
magnitude, and effects of the lack of access to nutritious and affordable food in underserved
communities. Several of these studies have concluded that not only is food access a significant
social, economic, and political challenge, but it is one that has been growing in dimension.
Food Access Strategies Identified
Eight strategies were identified in the research literature as the most widely used and
effective means of improving the food access of consumers in underserved communities. These
strategies, the details of which are described below, include the following:
(1) the development and construction of new supermarkets or the renovation of older
ones, most often as joint ventures involving partnerships between community
development corporations (CDCs) and retail grocery firms;
(2) the creation of farmers markets;
(3) the creation of public markets;
(4) the formation of food cooperatives;
(5) the establishment of urban agricultural initiatives;
(6) the provision or enhancement of transportation services for consumers traveling to
and from food outlets;
(7) the use of home shopping delivery services; and
(8) the establishment of food policy councils, usually as advisory and advocacy groups
to government agencies; the purpose of these councils is to provide technical
assistance and consumer education on food system issues.
IV
VI
LESSONS LEARNED
The lessons learned from this study can be meaningfully assembled into a discernable
model for organizing efforts to facilitate underserved communities' successful access to nutritious
and affordable food. Such a model has its foundation in the many common themes and patterns
of activities and techniques emerging from the literature and supported by insights shared by our
sampling of food access experts. The findings of this study suggest that the implementation of this
model within a context that emphasizes community empowerment and that offers technical,
financial, research, and program development assistance as well as nutrition education offers the
earmarks of success. The three major phases of this model are the food access readiness stage,
the mobilization stage, and the development and implementation stage.
In the first phase, communities are encouraged to engage in a variety of activities that help
prepare them for the implementation of a particular food access strategy. These include:
(1) efforts aimed at better understanding the dynamics of the community's perceptions
and feelings about food access as an issue and dispelling community apathy about
existing inadequate food outlets;
(2) conducting a needs assessment or marketing research to determine the extent of the
food access problem;
(3) gathering feasibility data about a specific strategy;
(4) fostering a positive climate and attitude among community members, local
government, civic organizations, food producers, potential food retailers, business
leaders, and other important constituents (e.g., transportation officials); and
(5) determining the community's level of technical resource capability, including skills
in proposal writing, knowledge of funding resources, knowledge of system related
requirements and others.
Technical assistance offered at this phase might include the conduct of background research on
food access issues and community education as well as assistance in formulating comprehensive
strategies for community development and empowerment.
In the second phase of community mobilization around a food access strategy, underserved
communities are primarily involved in efforts aimed at securing leadership and advocacy (or an
improvement initiative. These include such activities as:
v/W
(1) formulating partnerships with critical organizations or agencies such as CDCs. food
councils, and/or city-wide agencies (e.g.. transit authority and governments
officials);
(2) delineating division of responsibility among community activists: and
(3) securing finances, land, facilities or other needed resources.
At this phase, communities were found to benefit most from technical assistance that led to the
identification of funding sources and that helped in their navigation of regulatory and legal issues.
In the development and implementation phase, plans for implementing a strategy for
improving access to food are finalized and put into effect. In this phase, for example, the
supermarket or farmers* market opens its doors, the community garden is planted, or the food
coop takes its first orders. At this phase, communities benefit most from technical assistance that
enhances their operational and management capacity or from advice from other groups in other
communities engaged in similar initiatives.
Much was learned to help in providing technical assistance to community members,
practitioners, public policy makers, and advocates working to support the best practices for
alleviating food access problems. Data relevant to other critical policy areas also emerged during
this study. For example, many of the more successful food access projects examined during the
literature search and described by the respondents used consumer nutrition education strategies to
bring about a heightened understanding of community food access problems. Similarly, one of
the more innovative projects detailed in interviews with the food access experts was a farmers'
market that capitalized on food stamps in order to bring low-income residents into the venue. Both
the literature and the respondents' recommendations suggest the need for more programmatic
integration at the policy level. For underserved communities seeking to address their food access
problems, such an approach can exemplify leadership and advocacy at a level that can make a
difference.
vi
i/H
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction 1
Study Objectives 2
Methodology 3
The Food Access Expert Sample 4
Research Procedures 5
Organization of the Report 6
CHAPTER II: FOOD ACCESS-AN OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
Historical and Regional Perspectives
on Food Access Issues 8
Scope of the Problem in Urban Communities 9
Scope of the Problem in Rural Communities 11
Food Access Strategies 12
Supermarket Development 12
Farmers' Markets 14
Public Markets 17
Food Cooperatives 19
Urban Agriculture 20
Food Shopper Transportation Services 20
yH,
Grocery Delivery Services and
Home Grocery Shopping 21
Food Policy Councils 22
CHAPTER III: SUPERMARKET DEVELOPMENT
Findings from the Literature 23
The Role and Importance of
Community Development Corporations 24
The Role and Importance of Local Government
Support in Supermarket Development 27
The Importance of Research and Planning 28
Administrative Considerations 29
Site Assembly Considerations 30
Financial Incentives for Supermarket Development 30
Model CDC Joint Venture Supermarket Projects 31
Findings from the Qualitative Study 33
CHAPTER IV: FARMERS" MARKETS PUBLIC MARKETS. AND FOOD COOPERATIVES
Farmers' Markets 37
Findings from the Literature 37
Findings from the Qualitative Study 38
Public Markets 40
Findings from the Literature 40
A
Findings from the Qualitative Study 41
Food Cooperatives 41
Findings from the Literature 41
Findings from the Qualitative Study 43
CHAPTER V: ADDITIONAL FOOD ACCESS STRATEGIES
Urban Agriculture 45
Findings from the Literature 45
Findings from the Qualitative Study 47
Food Shopper Transportation Services 48
Findings from the Literature 48
Findings from the Qualitative Study 50
Grocery Delivery Services and Home Grocery Shopping 53
Findings from the Literature 53
Findings from the Qualitative Study 53
Food Policy Councils 54
Findings from the Literature 54
Findings from the Qualitative Study 55
CHAPTER VI: SUPPLEMENTARY FINDINGS FROM THE RESPONDENT INTERVIEWS
Respondent Comments on Critical Factors Leading to the
Success or Failure of Food Access Improvement Efforts 56
i\
Elements of Success 56
Failure Factors 57
Respondent Comments on Food Access Technical Assistance 58
Usefulness of Technical Assistance 60
Respondent Comments on the Role of Local Governments in
Improving Underserved Communities' Access to Food 60
CHAPTER VII: LESSONS LEARNED
Modeling an Approach for Improving Food Access 65
A"
CHAPTER I
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In recent years, there has been concern that some communities do not have sufficient access
to quality food at reasonable prices. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). which administers
the Federal food assistance programs, is particularly concerned with food access for households
that have limited resources. In these households, access plays an important role in obtaining a
nutritious diet.
FNS has undertaken several initiatives that address food access. The Agency contracted
with O'Connor - Abell. Inc. to identify factors critical to the success of supermarkets in low-income
inner cities. The findings, which were released in 1992, showed that it is possible for
supermarkets to do well in these communities and to improve access for their residents. The
retailers appeared to be successful because they were: (1) located in densely populated areas; (2)
involved the community in recruitment and hiring of employees; (3) paid attention to security; and
(4) established partnerships with the community in developing the supermarkets.
In September 1995, FNS sponsored a national Conference on Access to Food to present
successful strategies for improving access and to provide a forum for discussion. The conference
brought together food retailers, academicians, financiers, community residents, food access
advocates, and government officials to share their knowledge. Over 150 speakers and guests
participated in plenary sessions and workshops designed to frame the issues, highlight the link
between access and economic development, and heighten awareness of the need to form
public/private partnerships to address the issue.
FNS has also conducted a study to collect objective data on availability of food stamp-authorized
retailers to households receiving these benefits. FNS commissioned Macro
International to conduct a nationwide assessment of the variety, quality, and cost of food available
at authorized food retailers. The recently released findings showed that proximity to supermarkets
and large grocery stores that sell a wide range of reasonably priced food was about the same for
the low-income population as for the general population. Nationally, 90% of the total population
and 90% of the low-income population live in areas with at least one supermarket or large grocery
store present. The study also found that the number of supermarkets and large grocery stores was
slightly lower in high-poverty urban areas and supermarkets offer fewer full service departments.
In addition, about 40 percent of the rural population resided in localities without supermarkets or
large grocery stores.
A second data collection effort involved a national survey of low-income households. One
objective of that study was to obtain the households* perspective on their level of access to food.
They were asked about the alternatives for food shopping in their community, the distance they
travel as well as the method and cost of transportation, their level of satisfaction with the store
they most frequent and whether they desire other shopping alternatives. These findings will be
released in 1998.
The current report is a descriptive study focusing on communities that identified access as
an issue. The report regards access as the availability of a variety of nutritious and affordable
foods from stores and markets that are well-maintained and that offer products reflecting the
cultural make-up of the community. FNS awarded a contract to CRP, Inc. to determine the types
of strategies these underserved communities employed to reduce or eliminate barriers to access
and to assess the effectiveness of each strategy. Information was obtained through an extensive
review of the literature and a survey of individuals with knowledge or experience in food access.
This report presents the findings of this research.
Study Objectives
The purpose of this report is to provide a descriptive and exploratory examination of the
factors related to the issue of food access from a community empowerment perspective. This
purpose led to the following research questions:
• What types of strategies are being used to improve food access in underserved
urban and rural communities?
• What *'ood access strategies work best in each of these environments?
• What are the critical factors that must be met for a strategy to succeed?
• Are there any strategies that do not work well in either rural or urban communities?
If so, why?
The overall goal of the study was to extract useful perspectives from persons who have
knowledge and experience in the area of food access. Thus, in many ways, this analysis focused
not only on the "hows" and "whys" of the food access work being done in communities across
America but also on the conditions under which these efforts must operate and to which they must
respond.
/
This study seeks to describe what is working and why, to point out the strengths and
weaknesses of past and current food access efforts. Thus, the questions asked of and perspectives
provided by the respondents regarding the resources, building and infrastructure capacity
elements, the diversity of food access strategies and options, and the barriers faced as well as
recommendations for overcoming or eliminating those barriers, provide critical data for planning
future efforts and further advancing those already under way. The goal of this report is to serve
as a technical resource for community members, practitioners, public policy makers, and
advocates working to identify, support, and implement the best practices and techniques for
eliminating barriers of access to nutritious and affordable food.
Methodology
The approach of this study was qualitative in nature. Accordingly, the methods and
procedures included interviews and document review. These steps allowed for an exploratory
approach to be used in the research. Such an approach was key to understanding the complexity
of both the food access improvement strategies used in various communities as well as the factors
that enhance and impede these efforts' success. Where deemed important, quantitative synthesis
of the data was done to supplement the narrative findings, thereby allowing a richer interpretation
of the patterns, themes, and critical elements contained in the respondents' comments.
Specifically, the methodology used to address these questions included an extensive review
of the literature and a survey of a cross-section of people with knowledge about food access.
Between April and June 1996, directed interviews were conducted with experts selected from the
roster of attendees at the 1995 Conference on Access to Food and screened to determine those
whose areas and depths of experience and responsibilities were most pertinent to the objectives
of the study. Persons referred by individuals with knowledge about food access issues were also
included in the sample. Fifty-six (56) persons made up this purposive sample of respondents.
The respondents' duties and experiences with private, business, or government
organizations and agencies made them valuable sources of information and perspectives on
initiatives across the country that have been attempted or that are being planned to help
underserved communities improve or gain access to nutritious and affordable food. In their
interviews, they shared insights on both the successes and barriers they encountered in their efforts
to improve food access at the community level. They also described the strategies and techniques
they had either developed or used to overcome these barriers. Comments regarding the
effectiveness of these methods were sought, as were respondents' views regarding the perceived
roles of federal and local agencies at the local policy-making, legislative, or government level in
improving community food access.
A conceptual framework illustrating the literature review process can be found in
Appendix A. Identification and Retrieval of Secondary Data Sources: FNS Literature Review
This process yielded a wide variety of sources encompassing approximately 300 references
including books, journal articles, newspaper reports, unpublished papers, research project reports.
magazine articles, and newsletters. The extensive bibliography listing these items is included in
Appendix B of this report.
The Food Access Expert Sample
A total of 56 persons were selected to respond to a series of questions developed to gather
answers to the above research questions. The respondents came from diverse backgrounds, yet
all had either past or current experience working in a private, business, or government sector
organization or agency that addresses food access issues. They included nonprofit
organization/agency executives, federal government administrators, academicians, supermarket
chain executives, local government administrators, food policy advocates, association executives,
and food industry consultants. The average number of years that the study participants had been
employed with their organizations/agencies was 9.79. Table 1.1 provides a general profile of the
study respondents.
The respondents" experiential base in the area of food access was both direct and indirect
in nature. Direct duties and experiences were defined as those related to the production,
distribution, or sale of food to consumers. Indirect duties and experiences were defined as those
that involve research, finance, real estate development, advocacy, and policy development related
to food access issues. A more detailed description of the sample appears in Appendix C. Direct
and Indirect Duties/Responsibilities and Experiences of Respondents.
Table 1.1
General Profile of Interview Respondents
Type of Respondent Percent(n)
Type of Duties/Experiences*
Direct1 Indirect1
Non-Profit Executives 43% (24) 58%* 95%
Federal Government
Administrators
12% (7) 0% 100%
Academicians 11% (6) 33% 100%
Supermarket Executives 11% (6) 66% 50%
Local Government Administrators 9% (5) 60% 100%
Association Executives 7% (4) 75% 100%
Consultant Executives 7% (4) 33%** 100%*
Total 100 (56)
Refers IO consumer education and actions to produce, distribute or sell food
Helen to consumer education and activities related to food access such as research, advocacy, financing, and real estate development
Respondents could give multiple responses so data will total more than 100%
Data were missing for one respondent
Research Procedures
A primary objective of this qualitative study was to gather data that would provide insights
on which food access strategies are successful and which are not so successful, and why. Toward
that end, respondents were asked to share their opinions about the usefulness or non-utility of
various programs for improving food access in underserved communities. The interviewers were
trained to rate the effectiveness of each program using a five-point Likert rating scale (with higher
scores indicating greater effectiveness). The interviewers also rated the interviewees' comments
about the success of a program on a scale with possible rankings ranging from 1 ("little or no
success"), to 2 ("somewhat successful"), to 3 ("very successful"). Thus, two indexes were
available to rate the various types of food access strategies being used in the programs described
by the respondents. For purposes of analysis, both sets of information were deemed important to
interpret the respondents' statements about various programs and subsequently the strategies that
were employed by them. Utilizing these two scales, a "rating vector," the product of the
effectiveness and the success ratings, was devised, which attributed success/effectiveness scores
[
to each strategy ranging from 1 to 15. This rating vector represented a weighed average of the
two opinions and served as the primary index of the utility and viability of each of the food access
improvement program described by the field experts. That is. the rating vector was used to
evaluate the program and any strategies that these programs reportedly used. For example, a food
access strategy that tended to be associated with highly successful programs was deemed
"successful" by this procedure. Similarly, a food access strategy consistently associated with
poorly perceived programs was regarded as less successful by this method.
A total of 114 programs designed to address food access problems were described and
discussed bj the 56 study respondents. Of these, 60 (53%) were still in development or not
enough information was provided by the respondents for the interviewers to make a judgment of
the program strategy's success/effectiveness. The remaining 54 programs (47%) received an
average rating vector of 7.44. and most were perceived as being relatively successful and
effective.
The instruments were unstructured, thus, no two interviews were exactly alike.
Comparability of data across respondents was not as important as the range, depth and variety of
responses cited. Interviewers, however, were required to complete extensive training on the
methodology and techniques of the study. Additional details on the methodology used in this study
is provided in Appendix D.
Data analysis was primarily thematic in its approach, although some formalized content
analysis was done to reduce the interview data—obtained from conversations, interviews, or
diaries—into manageable and analyzable units. Data obtained from the interviews and observations
were also quantified to determine frequencies (means) and percentages of responses. In some
instances, the occurrence of critical elements in response to various questions was counted and
used to verify the qualitative perspectives of the respondents about various subjects related to food
access.
Organization of the Report
This report is organized into seven chapters accompanied by supporting technical
appendices. This first chapter presents the objectives, research questions, and methodology of the
research study. Subsequent chapters accomplish the following:
• Chapter II examines the issue of food access in its historical, social, community.
and economic development contexts. It also introduces each of the various food
access strategies identified in the literature, the kinds of resources required to
implement them, as well as the obstacles and benefits encountered as a result.
• Chapters III through V focus more extensively on individual food access
improvement strategies, expanding the review of literature relevant to each and
presenting key lessons about each offered by the study respondents. Chapter III
explores the most critical of these strategies, supermarket development, in greater
depth. Similarly, Chapter IV elaborates the findings with regard to farmers'
markets, public markets, and food cooperatives; while Chapter V focuses on urban
agriculture, food shopper transportation services, home delivery and home
shopping options, and food policy councils.
Chapter VI presents supplementary findings, gleaned from the respondent interview
data, on topics pertinent to the overall thrust of this study. These data yield
important insights on the factors leading to the success or failure of food access
improvement efforts. They also present an "expert's eye-view" of the nature and
effectiveness of food access technical assistance typically provided to communities
in need and the role of local governments in improving these communities' access
to nutritious, affordable food.
Lastly, Chapter VII presents suggestions for modeling a comprehensive approach
to improving underserved communities' access to food.
CHAPTER II
FOOD ACCESS: AN OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES
This chapter examines the issue of food access in its historical, social, community, and
economic development contexts. It also introduces the various strategies by which underserved
communities typically address their food access concerns, briefly describing the kinds of resources
required to implement each strategy as well as identifying the obstacles and benefits encountered
as a result. More detailed and substantive information on each strategy, gleaned from the
literature review and from the research study described in this report, follows in subsequent
chapters. The purpose of this chapter is to give readers, with limited time, sufficient background
information to select the subsequent sections best suited to their interests or needs.
Historical and Regional Perspectives on Food Access Issues
1
In a number of urban and rural low-income communities in some parts of the United States,
access to affordable and nutritious food has become an issue of considerable social and economic
concern. The need to provide sufficient, nutritious, and affordable food to the families and
children living within these settings has led to the increased visibility of this issue in the public
policy domain in the past three decades. Additionally, the process and problems of food access
has garnered the increasing attention of consumers and researchers in multiple sectors, including
government, business, and nonprofit organizations.
Numerous studies have been conducted that focus on various aspects of this subject. The
literature delineates the nature, magnitude, and effects of the lack of access to nutritious and
affordable food in underserved communities (e.g.. Ashman et al., 1993; California Food Policy
Advocates, 1996; Cotterill & Franklin, 1995; Fisher, 1994; Hartford Farm System, 1995;
Mantovani & Welsh, 1996; Morris, 1989, 1990; New York City Department of Consumer
Affairs, 1991; O'Connor - Abell, 1992; Sustainable Food Center, 1995; Troutt, 1993; Weinberg,
1995; 1996). Several of these studies have concluded that not only is food access a significant
social, economic, and political challenge, but it is one that has been growing in dimension and
scope.
8
Scope of the Problem in Urban Communities
To fully understand the origins of concerns about access to food sources, it is necessary
to examine the decades of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Over these three decades, several factors
prompted a trend where supermarkets migrated from the inner cities to the suburbs (Becker.
1992). The 1960s was a decade of urban renewal and social unrest as poor urban citizens
expressed their frustration with deteriorating living conditions. Interest in food access issues first
attracted attention in various news reports and investigation, following these civil disturbances.
The 1960s also signaled the beginning of the exodus of many White and middle-income Americans
from cities to suburbs, a demographic shift that not only weakened the economic infrastructure of
most urban centers but also inadvertently adversely affected equitable access to affordable and
nutritious food for low-income communities. As these residents relocated to the suburbs,
supermarkets followed
Demographic and economic forces contributed to the continued migration of supermarkets
during the 1970s. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, approximately 40% of the nation's
central cities lost population between 1970 and 1988; even higher rates were found in the
Northeast and Midwest (Becker, 1992). The literature also documents the migration of
supermarkets from low-income neighborhoods to the suburbs and the long-term decline in the
number of supermarkets serving many inner cities during this period (Ashman et al.. 1993:
Becker, 1992; Cotterill & Franklin, 1995; Edwards. 1978; Fisher & Gottlieb, 1996; Garry, 1995a;
Hartford Food System. 1984; Miller. 1983; New York City Department of Consumer Affairs.
1991: O'Connor - Abell. 1992; Sustainable Food Center, 1995; Turque. Rosenberg. & Barrett.
1992; Weinberg. 1996). During the 1980s, the trend toward more and larger supermarkets located
outside the nation's inner cities was fueled by mergers and leveraged buy-outs that affected 16
of the top 20 national chains (Turque et al., 1992). This consolidation or downsizing effect forced
many supermarket chains to sell off their less profitable stores, many of which were located in
inner cities.
By contrast, the suburbs offered not only more shoppers but also more affluent shoppers.
Supermarket developers, hampered by the generally smaller, older, and more obsolete stores in
the inner cities, found it more profitable to build larger stores, with ample parking, on open tracts
of land available in the suburbs. Additionally, suburban governments were amenable to providing
tax concessions and other incentives to attract supermarket development. Moreover, the costs of
operating stores in suburban locations are lower than in urban centsrs. The higher operating costs
of inner-city stores—costs that include higher expenses for labor, freight and deliveries, utilities,
rent, insurance, workers compensation, parking, and security—have been documented in the
literature (Ashman et al., 1993; Becker, 1992; Bennett, 1992; Blalock, 1993; Diesenhouse, 1993;
Edwards, 1978; Fisher & Gottlieb, 1996; Garry, 1993, 1995a; McLaughlin, 1994; Robaton, 1996;
Schwadel, 1996; Weinberg, 1996; Zwiebach, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). As a result of the departure
of supermarkets from many inner cities since the 1960s, some of today's low-income residents
sa
are not afforded easy access to nutritious, competitively-priced food. Their food shopping options
are restricted to small neighborhood stores that generally offd 'imited selections of higher priced,
poor quality food.
The literature provides mixed evidence of the magnitude of the urban grocery gap. Several
studies have addressed food access disparities in urban areas on a national level (Cotterill &
Franklin, 1995; Weinberg. 1996; Mantovani and Welsh. 1996). The Public Voice for Food and
Health Policy's (Weinberg. 1996) review of supermarket trends in urban counties between 1967
and 1994 identified a number of counties whose older cities experienced not onJy population losses
but decreases in the number of food stores and supermarkets as well. This group included Suffolk
County (Boston), Massachusetts; Cook County (Chicago), Illinois; Wayne County (Detroit).
Michigan; Philadelphia County (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania; Milwaukee County (Milwaukee).
Wisconsin; the five boroughs/counties of New York City, New York; and Washington, DC.
Moreover, according to a report presented at the Congressional hearings on the topic, "Obtaining
Food: Shopping Constraints on the Poor" (Select Committee on Hunger. U.S. House of
Representatives. 1987), 90% of the conventional grocery stores located in low-income
neighborhoods nationwide in 1981 either closed voluntarily or went out of business to relocate in
the suburbs. The report issued from Congress's "Urban Grocery Gap" hearings in 1992 further
note that during the 1970s and 1980s. Cleveland-based First National Supermarkets (Finast) closed
two-thirds of its more than 200 outlets, the majority of which were located in inner cities. The
company was left with stores in suburban New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and with
a declining Pick-N-Pay chain in Ohio. Further, most of the 600 stores closed nationwide by the
A&P supermarket chain in the 1980s were in inner cities (Becker, 1992; Select Committee on
Hunger, U.S. House of Representatives, 1992). More recently, in a study of hunger and
homelessness sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, close to one-third of the 28 cities
surveyed reported that the number of supermarkets in their low-income neighborhoods had
decreased between November 1990 and November 1991 alone (Select Committee on Hunger, U.S.
House of Representatives, 1992).
On the other hand, as previously stated, a separate study by the Food and Nutrition Service
examined the proximity of food stamp recipients to food stores authorized to receive food stamps
(Mantovani. Daft, Macaluso, & Hoffman, 1996). The findings showed that most low-income
households are in close proximity to a full-line grocery store or supermarket and this population
has about the same level of access to these stores as the general population. However, the number
of these stores is lower in high-poverty areas than in other areas.
Examples of two affected cities discussed in the literature are described in detail in
Appendix E, Exhibit 1. The two cities, Los Angeles, California (an Empowerment Zone), and
Charlotte, North Carolina (an Enterprise Community), experienced sustained migration of
supermarkets from their inner cities to the suburbs. As this exhibit indicates, Los Angeles lost
particularly large numbers of supermarkets from its metropolitan and South Central areas.
10
beginning in the 1970s. Appendix E, Exhibit 2 shows a map of Southeast Los Angeles and
Appendix E, Exhibit 3 graphically depicts access of the residents to supermarkets and large-grocery
stores. Appendix E, Exhibit 4 briefly summarizes the circumstances in other urban areas
(revealed in the literature) in which supermarkets left inner-city communities.
Although some inner-city communities and their residents are disproportionate!)
underserved by large, full-service supermarkets, an emerging body of literature suggests that this
trend or pattern is slowly being reversed in various urban markets across America. The gradual
return of supermarkets to the inner cities began in the 1990s as suburban sites were becoming
saturated with retail space, making inner-city areas with their high population densities and lack
of competition increasingly attractive as economically viable growth opportunities. Two examples
of cities in which supermarkets are returning to the inner city are presented in Appendix E.
Exhibit 5. The two cities highlighted in this appendix are New York City and Boston.
Massachusetts. It shows that the Pathmark. Bravo, and Waldbaum supermarket chains are
returning to the New York City metropolitan area; while in Boston, the Stop & Shop. Purity
Supreme, and Wollaston's grocery chains are reversing the out-migration trend in that city. Brief
summaries of this trend in other cities are highlighted in Appendix E. Exhibit 6.
Scope of the Problem in Rural Communities
Relatively little research has been reported on the nature and magnitude of food access
disparities faced by the rural poor. However, attention has been drawn to the finding that few
supermarkets are located in some rural communities. Morris (1989) observed that the lack of
supermarkets in some low-income rural areas limits the rural poor's food buying options to
smaller, more expensive, independent food stores, where both the quality and selection of food
are poor. These disparities are exacerbated by the lack of access to transportation of many of the
rural poor, which constricts their ability to shop outside of their communities.
Morris (1990) further documents the prevalence and disproportionate nature of limited
access to competitively priced supermarkets in selected rural areas. Using key indicators, she
found that a) urban counties had nearly eight times as many supermarkets; b) rural areas had an
average of one supermarket every 265 square miles compared to one every 27 square miles in
urban areas; and c) small/medium stores in persistently poor rural America offered extremely
limited selections of fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats. Based on these findings, Morris called
for creative rural development strategies including the establishment of cooperative wholesale
buying programs and the promotion of low-interest loans for the improvement or acquisition of
small/medium food stores.
Mantovani et al (1996) also found that the distance between low-income households and
supermarkets c large grocery stores is greater in rural areas than other areas. As previously
stated. 40 percent of ihe rural population in poverty reside in communities without such stores.
The same percentage of the total population live in areas without stores, but it is important to note
that low-income households have fewer resources at hand to travel that distance. Unlike Morris.
Mantovani and Welsh found that the price, selection, and quality of foods were about the same
among supermarkets and large groceries in high-poverty and low-poverty areas.
Food Access Strategies
Eight strategies were identified in the research literature as the most widely used and
effective means of improving the food access of consumers in underserved communities. These
strategies, the details of which are described below, include the following:
(1) the development and construction of new supermarkets or the renovation of older
ones, most often as joint ventures involving partnerships between community
development corporations (CDCs) and retail grocery firms;
(2) the creation of farmers' markets;
(3) the creation of public markets;
(4) the formation of food cooperatives;
(5) the establishment of urban agricultural initiatives;
(6) the provision or enhancement of transportation services for consumers traveling to
and from food outlets;
(7) the use of home shopping delivery services; and
(8) the establishment of food policy councils, usually as advisory and advocacy groups
to government agencies; the purpose of these councils is to provide technical
assistance and consumer education on food system issues.
Supermarket Development
According to the Food Marketing Institute (n.d.), a supermarket is any store selling retail
food items with annual sales of $2 million or more. In addition to full-line grocery shopping for
food and other household products, supermarkets offer consumers a number of important food
system benefits, including greater convenience, diversity of food choices, lower prices, and
nutrition education. As a result, the supermarket is frequently the most important component of
12
a community's food distribution system.
Development of such outlets in underserved communities can play a major role in
improving food access. Several barriers to the implementation of this food access strategy have
been reported in the literature, however (Ashman et al., 1993; Becker, 1992; Bookout, 1993;
Community Food Resource Center, 1994; Edwards. 1978; Fisher. 1994; Fisher & Gottlieb. 1996;
Garry. 1995a; Hartford Food System, 1984, 1994; "The Inner-City Supermarket," 1996; New
York City Department of Consumer Affairs, 1991; O'Connor - Abell, 1992; Porter, 1995;
Schwadel. 1996; Sustainable Food Center. 1995; Turque et al.. 1992; Walsh, 1995; Weinberg.
1996). The most widely cited barriers fall into the following categories:
(1) restrictive retail building, parking, administrative, and/or zoning prohibitions that
ipede the construction of supermarkets;
(2) lack of interest on the part of supermarket developers due to the belief that
neighborhood shoppers will not generate sufficient sales volume to make stores
profitable:
(3) potential shoppers' lack of private (personal automobile) or inadequate public (bus.
subway, or taxi service) transportation to facilitate convenient and frequent travel
to and from the supermarket; and
(4) concerns about crime (theft, vandalism) and customer and employee security in the
areas surrounding potential store sites in underserved areas.
To develop supermarkets in underserved areas, creative approaches are often needed. The
formation of viable partnerships between supermarket retailers and community development
corporations (CDCs) and/or other community organizations, government agencies, and private
lenders have been identified as a promising approach to supporting and advancing inner-city
supermarket development.
Two different forms of supermarket development joint ventures have evolved: (a) the sole
ownership model and (b) the shared ownership model. In the first arrangement, the CDC develops
and owns the store, typically in partnership with a commercial developer. Upon completion of
the store, either the CDC or partnership group leases the building to either a supermarket chain
or independent operator, who takes charge of the actual operation and management of the store
(Community Nutrition Institute, 1982).
The second type of joint venture is one in which the CDC, as partner and co-owner with
a grocery firm, participates in the development of the supermarket from the very beginning—from
the research and planning stages, through the land assembly process—often a monumental hurdle
13
in itself—and the process of overcoming bureaucratic red tape, to the management o\ store
operations. Under this shared ownership arrangement, the partners' resources, strength, and
commitment are formally pooled, thereby improving the chance for project success. The grocery
firm's ownership stake in such a project from the very start facilitates the availability of its
expertise for all aspects of store development including construction, layout, and project oversight.
Although the CDC plays a larger role in store operations, the supermarket firm is in charge of
day-to-day management and receives a fee for this service. Profits are shared according to each
partner's proportional investment in the project (Ashman et al., 1993).
Farmers' Markets
A farmers' market is a retail outlet wherein farmers and vendors lease or rent space in a
common facility, typically located in an outdoor setting and on a temporary basis, for the sale of
fresh farm products, crafts, and other locally produced items (Johnson & Bragg. 1994). Estes
(1985) categorizes farmers' markets into two types: community retail and regional. Community
retail farmers' markets serve primarily a single city and its surrounding area, operate seasonally
have limited permanent facilities, and depend on locally supplied products. By contrast, regional
farmers' markets are located in larger cities, operate year-round, are housed or located in
permanent facilities, and offer products from both local and non-local sources.
Farmers' markets typically represent the closest link between farmers and food consumers
in inner cities. In recent years, a resurgence of farmers' markets in urban areas has occurred due,
in part, to renewed interest in direct marketing activity as a means of providing fresher, cheaper
produce for inner-city consumers and increasing both marketing alternatives and incomes for local
growers. Nationally, the number of farmers' markets operating in the United Sates has increased,
from 1.755 in 1994 to 2,410 in 1996 (Johnson & Bragg. 1996). These numbers, however,
represent only those markets listed as "active" by state departments of agriculture and do not
include the smaller, generally informal markets. The overall increase in farmers' markets is
reflected in Figure 2.1, which illustrates the rise in this type of food outlet in the seven states with
the largest number of farmers' markets.
14
Figure 2.1
Trends in Farmers' Market Development By Selected States
1994 vs. 1996 (By Number of Markets)
249
100 150 200
1996 1994
Primary obstacles to increased consumer utilization of farmers' markets include the
following:
inadequate publicity about and inconvenient location of these outlets;
insufficient public transit mechanisms (i.e., shuttle service, convenient bus routes)
to transport patrons to and from farmers' markets;
limited hours of operation;
inadequate parking facilities; and
limited product availability.
To expand awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-income consumers, particularly
those in areas that are underserved by other types of food outlets, the FNS administers the
Fanners' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). This program originated as a result of the passage
of Public Law 102-314 in July 1992, which established the FMNP as an independent federal
program. Under the provisions of this law, states may apply for up to 70% of the funds to
15
implement and operate the program. Through FMNP, participants in the federal Food Stamps and
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) are provided
coupons or checks that they can use to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables at authorized farmers'
markets. At the time these coupons are issued, recipients also receive consumer education about
how to select and prepare fresh produce and how to shop effective! at local farmers' markets.
Farmers who are certified to accept these coupons for their produi e at markets participating in this
program are reimbursed at face value. Among the FMNP farmer's markets mentioned in the
literature is the Montgomery State Farmer's Market (MSFM wh a multi-county area
known as Alabama's Black Belt. Established in 1986, the MSFM s 40 retail units, 40
trucker units, 12 wholesale units, a garden center, an admin, .trative building, a restaurant and
ample parking. Many low-income consumers of the MSFM expressed a high level of satisfaction
with the availability of FMNP coupons to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables (USDA, Food and
Nutrition Service. 1995c: Baharanyi et al.. n.d).
The FMNP is reaching increasing numbers of the persons for whom it was intended (see
Figure 2.2) By 1995. the program was active in 26 states and within three Indian tribal
organizations and the District of Columbia. As Figure 2.3 indicates, the number of FMNP
recipients almost doubled from over 541,000 in 1993 to slightly over 1,000.000 in 1995. Thus,
by expanding the base of consumers who might purchase from farmers' markets, this program also
benefits farmers by increasing their earnings (National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition
Programs. 1995. 1996). Similarly, growth in the number of participating farmers' markets was
just as precipitous, from 668 in 1993 to over 1,100 in 1995; and the number of farmers
participating in the FMNP grew from 4.600 in 1993 to slightly over 8.000 during the same time
period. These data suggest that farmers' markets can be mutually beneficial to residents of
underserved communities and to farmers.
16
FIGURE 2.2
FMNP Recipients Who Had Never Visited A Farmers' Market
Before Participating In FMNP, By Selected States
*m
Nail /AH Stales
linoit
Indiana -
Rhode Island -
California -\
Kentucky
Ohio
Chickataw/OK
Massachusetts
New Jersey
North Carolina
■^^^i■^w
«
■-a
10 20 30 40 50
Percentage Distribution
'f . National. All States Combined | Individual Sum
Public Markets
Public markets are municipally owned and operated facilities established for the purpose
of allowing vendors to sell fresh produce, vegetables, ethnic food, crafts, and personal services
to community residents from open stalls. Four types of public markets are common: open air
markets, shed-roof structures, market halls, and market districts (Baum & Spitzer, 1995). For
residents of communities underserved by other food outlets, public markets are among the few
food shopping options within walking or short ride (by public or private transportation) distance.
While public markets often offer cost savings comparable to supermarkets, unlike supermarkets,
many public market vendors usually sell food items in bulk quantities rather than prepackaged,
smaller quantities.
Numerous obstacles or problems as well as benefits in developing and operating public
markets have been identified. For example, a common challenge encountered by public market
planners and developers is attempting to develop a "mercado" or indoor market building, the most
complex and risky form of public market, rather than less expensive forms. The mercado is a
relatively unproven public market format which often requires multiple hinders including private
sector lenders and an extensive planning phase that can overburden organizational management,
17
FIGURE 2.3
Distribution of WIC Recipients
Participating in The Fanners' Market Nutrition Program by Program Year
1983 1984
Program Y«»r
199S
Source: WIC Farmers' Market Program
Operations Reports, 1993, 1994 and 1995
staff and volunteer resources. Further, if the mercado is small, few vendors will be available,
resulting in a limited variety of products (Baum & Spitzer, 1995). Other difficulties include lack
of sufficient staff capacity and public market management experience of the sponsoring
organization, opposition from nearby business owners, adoption of unrealistic development
schedules, failure to accurately estimate the types and severity of political impediments, reliance
on unqualified entrepreneurs, and inability to secure long-term leases on public space (particularly
for open-air markets). Developing public markets in distressed, low-income communities pose
additional difficulties such as limited sales or inadequate purchasing power of neighborhood
residents and fear of crime among participating vendors.
However, because public markets integrate both public and business goals, they provide
numerous benefits to their surrounding areas or communities, participating vendors, and
customers. Public markets serve as effective economic development and community revitalization
strategies by generating jobs and by attracting businesses, farmers, and customers to a downtown
or neighborhood commercial district, thereby enhancing the level of intercultural and social
exchange in an area as well as stimulating nearby agricultural production. For their pan,
participating vendors are afforded an accessible and nurturing environment that offers low
overhead and operational costs. Lastly, public markets offer consumers access to affordable,
18
reasonably priced fresh food, nutrition education, and, in some cases, social services that address
the needs of local residents (Baum & Spitzer, 1995).
Food Cooperatives
There are two major types of food cooperatives: cooperative buying clubs (or pre-order
cooperatives) and retail cooperative food stores. Buying clubs are organized such that groups of
people pool their resources to buy food in bulk quantities at lower cost-per-item (usually 20% to
40%) wholesale prices. They save additional money by performing the work involved in
compiling orders, exchanging money, picking up and distributing goods themselves, thereby
keeping operating costs as low as possible. Buying clubs generally do not carry an inventory and
may operate out of members' homes on distribution days, usually once or twice a month. While
most pre-order buying clubs are small, they can range from 10-member groups of neighbors or
friends to sophisticated, computerized clubs serving hundreds and thousands of households
(Singerman, 1986).
By contrast, retail food cooperatives are co-ops that maintain an inventory of food products
and often nonfood items similar to other types of grocery stores (Singerman, 1986). Most of these
use members, who receive price discounts in return for their labor, as volunteer workers; yet,
convenience and broad offerings of food items are the major benefits offered retail food co-op
members. Members can select and purchase food in whatever amounts they wish and whenever
they please, within the hours of operation of the store or warehouse.
Although little has been reported on the attitudes and motives of food cooperative members
toward their organizations, the research strongly suggests that lower food prices are the principal
reason consumers choose this means of improving their food access. According to Thompson,
Brown, and Burnette (1982), although co-op members typically do not buy all of their groceries
from this source, the average savings on items purchased through food co-ops was 21 %. Sommer,
Hohn, and Tyburczy (1981) found that the most common reasons for shopping at large retail
cooperative food stores were, in order of frequency: convenience, price, and membership
privileges.
During the 1970s, food co-ops were championed by the "counterculture," "anti-establishment"
movement of the day, as a means of creating more equitable, socially responsible
alternatives for the production and distribution of food to those in need. Over the decades,
however, the following obstacles to increased utilization of food cooperatives as a means of
improving a community's access to food have been recognized: increased competition from other
types of food outlets; lack of availability of adequate facilities to house co-op operations, store
food items, or refrigerate perishables; less than satisfactory rates of membership participation that
render co-op operation unprofitable or expensive, unwillingness of retail cooperative food stores
19
to locate their facilities in the inner cities, and the inability to acquire financing to establish or
support food co-ops.
Urban Agriculture
Urban agricultural initiatives typically involve the allotment by local governments of open
spaces or individual plots of land to individuals and neighborhood or other community-based
organizations for the purpose of planting vegetables and fruits for individual use or for sale or free
or reduced-price distribution to local residents. In contrast to rural agricultural initiatives, urban
agricultural efforts generally demand a higher yield per unit of space, have higher requirements
for labor and lower requirements for capital, and carry lower risk. Urban agriculture is also
dominated by smaller operations. The literature delineates two principal forms of urban
agricultural initiatives as food access strategies: (a) community gardening and (b) community
farming or community-supported agriculture. Each approach offers nutritional and economic
benefits. They provide inner-city residents with modest amounts of fresh, nutritious produce at
low cost.
Among the obstacles to implementing community gardening projects in inner-city areas are
finding suitable property and securing permission to use the land as a garden. Finding suitable
property for community farms in the inner-city can be difficult as well. The city of Philadelphia
(PA) addresses this issue by providing long-term leases for the use of its 40,000 city-owned vacant
lots zoned for community gardening and by waiving any fees, taxes, and liability insurance
stipulations associated with the use of those lots (Ashman et al., 1993). Funding for community
gardening and community farming projects alike can also be a challenge, particularly start-up
costs. However, both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S.
Department of Labor have funded community gardening projects, and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides Community Development Block Grants for this
purpose. City agencies and foundations as well as corporations also support the establishment of
community gardening and farming projects.
Food Shopper Transportation Services
Underserved areas are more likely to have lower rates of automobile ownership. This can
create a need for alternative transportation strategies to facilitate low-income residents' access-to
outlets that offer nutritious, affordable food. In an underseved neighborhood, consumers find that
they have to travel long distances to other areas of the city or to the suburbs in order to shop at
competitive supermarkets. This trek often involves mass transit, taxicabs, or other forms of
transportation that can be relatively expensive, thereby reducing low-income shoppers' already
limited food dollars. Moreover, there are often limitations on the amount of groceries they are
20
able to physically transport from the store via these methods.
To address this food access dilemma, private and public transportation services linking
low-income residents with food outlets have been established to facilitate the improved food access
of these residents to better quality, affordable food. One of the most widely utilized options for
this purpose includes the provision of vans and shuttle buses to transport persons from
neighborhoods underserved by supermarkets to supermarkets in other areas. Such programs,
typically sponsored by supermarket chains and nonprofit agencies, provide examples of what
communities and retailers alike are doing to enhance access to food through alternative
transportation modalities.
As noted in the forgoing discussion, the major obstacle to transportation options is the lack
of systematic coordination and integration of food access issues and transportation planning.
Minimum purchase requirements of some supermarkets or grocery stores may also deter or
discourage the use of such services (Ashman et al., 1993; Fisher and Gottlieb, 1996). Alternative
transportation strategies offer significant benefits to both customers and food retailers. The most
important benefit to customers is accessibility to additional food resources, particularly for transit-dependent
populations. Additional benefits for customers are increased dollars available for food
shopping and lower transportation costs. Benefits for food retailers include higher sales, reduced
parking lot use, increased customer loyalty, additional shopping trips for new and long-term
customers, and reduction in the rates of shopping cart loss.
Grocery Delivery Services and Home Grocery Shopping
Grocery delivery services are another emerging development in strategies to improve food
access. To utilize these services, consumers select the desired food items from a listing offered
by a food retailer or shopping service provider. Then, at a time that is convenient to their unique
schedules, consumers phone, fax, or transmit via computer modem or electronic mail ("e-mail")
their lists to the provider, who does all the shopping, sorting, and bagging, and delivers the items
to the consumers' doorsteps at a prearranged time for a fee. Payment for the groceries and
delivery is usually authorized with a credit card number at the time the order is transmitted, or it
is made upon delivery (Chandler, 1995; Dell, 1996; Fox, 1994; Francella, 1996; Garry, 1995;
Store Equipment and Design, 1995).
Security concerns, including letting in unknown delivery persons and fears about giving
out one's credit card numbers, are the greatest obstacles working against the more widespread use
of home delivery and home shopping services ("Home Shopping More Popular for Hi-tech Baby
Boomers," 19%). Nonetheless, four major forces point toward an important future role for these
strategies:
(1) increasing time restraints that limit busy consumers' ability to do their own
21
shopping;
(2) the entry of large supermarket operations into the home delivery service arena;
(3) improvements in the basic technology supporting home delivery, primarily the
development of more user-friendly computer software and improved telephone/fax
message systems; and
(4) increasing willingness and ability of consumers to experiment and become
proficient in the use of technology to conduct their food shopping tasks.
Food Policy Councils
Food policy councils are local advisory groups that work actively to pursue, coordinate,
and increase community awareness of food system issues. By working with public agencies, food
advocacy groups, community leaders, neighborhood associations, private-sector organizations, and
other relevant stakeholders, food policy councils can have a catalytic effect on food access issues.
One of the nation's most innovative initiatives targeted to developing and strengthening food
policy councils is the Local Food System Project (LFSP), funded by the Kellogg Foundation.
Established in 1994, the LFSP provides technical assistance to councils in six sites including Los
Angeles (CA). Berkshire County in western Massachusetts, a nine-county region around Rochester
(NY), Pittsburgh (PA), Austin (TX), and Moyers (WV) (Program Report, Local Food Systems
Project Selects Six Policy Development Sites, n.d.). To date, it has assisted these communities
in developing food policy structures and food system components, including those supporting the
increased production, distribution, access, and consumption of food to underserved areas.
Impediments to the effective development and implementation of food policy councils
primarily encompass issues of administration, funding support, and organizational structure. The
operational capacity of food policy councils is often limited because most cannot implement or
enforce the policies they advocate. Difficulties in securing adequate and sustained sources of
funding also constrain these groups' resources and undermine their overall effectiveness. Further,
the start-up process for initiating food policy councils can be long and arduous, particularly if a
functional structure is not available.
On the other hand, food policy councils perform important educational, policy
development, information dissemination, advocacy, technical assistance, and coordination roles.
They can also serve as catalysts for food access improvement efforts by bringing together disparate
stakeholders to pursue food access-related matters and other food system issues.
22
CHAPTER III
SUPERMARKET DEVELOPMENT
Both the literature and the present research corroborate the significance and effectiveness
of supermarket development as the most far-reaching and complex strategy for improving
underserved communities' access to food. This chapter identifies and explores at length the
elements that are unique to this approach and that can make its impact on community development
and empowerment so profound. It also examines the factors deemed critical to the success or
failure of supermarket development initiatives in urban and rural settings. Exemplary supermarket
development projects, both those noted in the literature and by the study respondents, are
identified and appraised utilizing criteria deemed important by both sources.
Findings from the Literature
A number of factors have been deemed vital to successful supermarket development in
underserved areas. There is strong evidence that the active and collaborative involvement of
CDCs (community development corporations), communities, supermarket firms, and local
governments is critical (O'Connor - Abell, 1992; Food Marketing Institute, n.d.; Successful Urban
Center Supermarkets, 1993; The Retail Initiative, 1996; Weinberg, 1996; Wollaston's Market,
1996). Traditionally, CDCs have focused the bulk of their attention and resources on the
development of low-income, affordable housing, with little attention paid to the development of
retail outlets. In recent years, however, increasing numbers of CDCs have redefined their
institutional missions and roles to facilitate their expansion into new areas of community and
economic revitalization including supermarket development. CDC interest in this area has been
driven in some cases by the lack or loss of grocery retailers in underserved communities and in
other cases by the recognition that supermarket development creates jobs and income for area
residents as well as addresses unmet food access needs. For an increasing number of CDCs,
supermarket development affords diversification opportunities and is viewed as a form of
community empowerment and neighborhood-based economic development.
In 6 of the 14 supermarket development cases studied by O'Connor - Abell (1992), CDCs
were identified as the "most effective" in "creating and realizing long-term strategies" (p. 19). As
Weinberg (1996) notes:
The most common approach [to supermarket development] is leadership from a community
development group with experience in neighborhood revitalization and/or commercial
23
enterprises, teamed with a food retailer, one or more financial institutions, real estate
interests, and local government entities. This combination of non-profit, for-profit and
public forces working together can often succeed in bringing supermarkets to underserved
neighborhoods, (p. 19)
Although in some cases supermarket chains initiate the supermarket development process,
community involvement is an important element. O'Connor - Abell have noted the difference that
effective and focused community involvement can make in initiating and advancing inner-city
supermarket development:
We found areas that previously had lacked supermarkets where the residents organized to
initiate, support, and/or enter into a working relationship with the supermarket of their
choice. The communities organized in various ways. This included nonprofit
organizations providing specific services, as well as sophisticated nonprofit organizations
negotiating financial joint ventures with the supermarket industry, (p. 19)
The Role and Importance of Community Development Corporations
Since the 1960s, CDCs have served as catalysts for initiating joint ventures leading to
supermarket development in several major urban centers. For example, the Brooklyn, New York-based
Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation (BSRC), the nation's first community
development corporation, was established in 1967 with bipartisan support from Senators Robert
F. Kennedy (D-NY) and Jacob Javits (R-NY). In 1977, this group entered into a partnership with
Pathmark Stores (then known as Supermarkets General) to form the Restoration Supermarket
Corporation (RSC) and launch that supermarket chain's first joint venture with a CDC. In 1979,
the RSC and Pathmark Stores opened the Restoration Supermarket, the first large supermarket to
open in the Bedford-Stuyvesant community in over 25 years (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service,
1995b). In 1994, a $1 5-million renovation effort was completed on the store to add more check-out
lanes, a new entrance, and a modified garage stairway (TRI, 1996). RSC owns two-thirds
of the store while Pathmark owns one-third. The grocery store anchors Restoration Plaza, which
occupies one square city block, has 70 tenants, and employs an estimated 800 people (TRI, 1996).
With its annual sales of over $25 million, the store has been listed among the nation's top 100
minority-owned businesses (TRI, 1996).
The opening of the Farmer Jack Supermarket in the Virginia Park Community Shopping
Plaza in 1981 was the culmination of efforts begun in 1969 by one prominent CDC, Detroit's
Virginia Park Community Investment Associates (VPCIA). Since its inception, the VPCIA has
been assisted by a local agency, the Detroit Community and Economic Development Department
(Richey, 1996). From 1969 to 1979, the VPCIA raised funds for the purpose of developing a
supermarket, joining the International Association of Shopping Centers (IASC) in 1972 after
24
attending the IASC's national convention. At that meeting, VPC1A memhers were inspired by the
presentation of Reverend Leon Sullivan, a minister whose congregation had developed Progress
Plaza, a shopping center in Philadelphia. In 1977, VPCIA representatives visited Progress Plaza,
where they were impressed by the effectiveness of Reverend Sullivan's fundraising campaign.
Upon returning to Detroit, they established a similar program to raise the equity required to
become eligible for financial assistance through loans and grants (Richey, 1996).
Another CDC. the Greater Southwest Development Corporation (GSDC), serves Chicago
Lawn and West Englewood, two low-income communities on Chicago's southwest side. In 1980.
after purchasing and assembling a site next to a Sears department store, the GSDC approached the
Jewel/Osco supermarket chain about developing a supermarket. Today, the Jewel/Osco store is
recognized as the anchor for the revitalization of the area ("Successful Urban Center
Supermarkets." 1996).
In Newark, the New Community Corporation (NCC) began developing plans for a
shopping center in 1980 after approaching Supermarkets General, the parent company of
Pathmark, as a potential joint venture partner (Pathmark Stores, Inc., & New Community
Corporation, n.d). The biggest hurdle NCC encountered was acquiring parcels of land for the
supermarket-anchored project, which serves as a model for Pathmark-CDC joint ventures currently
underway in Harlem and the Bronx. The Pathmark store's success to date has been demonstrated
by a number of factors. These include a weekly sales volume higher than original projections; job
and career opportunities for neighborhood residents; a convenient, high-quality place to shop;
competitive prices (approximately 38 percent below the neighborhood convenience stores); and
other economic benefits (Food Marketing Institute, n.d.; USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 1995
c).
The relocation of St. Joseph Hospital from the center of Kansas City, Missouri, in 1975
left the area with a vacant building that soon became a haven for illegal activity. The state's plan
to build a prison on the site galvanized Kansas City's Black Ministers' Union (BMU), which
organized community opposition to defeat the prison proposal. The BMU subsequently joined
forces with the Community Development Corporation of Kansas City, which acquired the site for
the development of a supermarket-anchored shopping center (TRI, 1996).
The Tacolcy Economic Development Corporation (TEDC) of Miami, Florida, has
developed a Winn-Dixie supermarket on the site of an empty Pantry Pride store that had been
vandalized during the Liberty City riots in 1980. Since 1992, after having been contacted by
Winn-Dixie grocery chain executives, this group has led efforts to expand Miami's supermarket-anchored
Edison Plaza Shopping Center to accommodate a Winn-Dixie marketplace superstore
(TEDC, 1996).
In Cleveland, the Finast grocery chain has launched supermarket development alliances and
25
partnerships with several neighborhood development organizations, churches, and community
groups in inner-city Cleveland as part of its innovative Urban Initiative (Finast Supermarkets
Urban Initiative. 1995). Since 1987, this $35 million investment program has established the
development and renovation of numerous supermarkets in Cleveland's inner city. Among the
factors believed to have attributed to the Initiative's success are: a strong public/private
partnership; community acceptance of Finast; commitment of local government; recruitment,
training and retention of community residents (Finast employees); the availability of ethnic foods
in stores (reflecting the inner city's cultural diversity); security measures such as hiring police
officers as security officers; and extensive radio advert.sing (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service,
1995c).
In Washington, D.C., the Marshall Heights Community Development Corporation used
a $25,000 venture grant from the DC. Department of Housing and Community Development to
leverage a $3.2 million deal for the purchase and renovations of the supermarket-anchored East
of the River Park Shopping Center (Marshall Heights Community Development Organization,
n.d). The idea for another development in Washington, D.C., the Good Hope Marketplace, was
first proposed by Safeway supermarket chain executives. The 96,500-square-foot shopping center
is located in the Anacostia area of southeast Washington, DC. Safeway approached the Anacostia
Economic Development Corporation and expressed interest in developing a project that would not
only address food access but would offer replication potential for other areas of the city and
nation. In addition to the supermarket, which will anchor the retail center, the center will also
include a bank and a family restaurant (Lundegaard, 1997).
Another example can be found in Alexandria. Louisiana, when the A&P on Bolton Avenue
closed in 1993, residents of this high-crime, low-income neighborhood were left without an
accessible, full-service grocery store. That same year, the president of the local CDC. the Bolton
Avenue Neighborhood Watch Group, began actively searching out new businesses to spur
redevelopment in the Bolton Avenue community. His efforts culminated in the opening of a Save-a-
Lot supermarket in 1994 (Save-a-Lot Stores, 1993).
Boston's South End neighborhood (population 13,000) suffered a similar loss with the
closing of its 20-year-old A&P supermarket in February 1993. In response, the neighborhood's
six civic associations, representing citizens of various ethnic backgrounds, formed a group called
the Task Force for a Castle Square Supermarket. Initially, this task force worked with the owner
of the store property to locate a new tenant for this site. Their efforts were later bolstered by the
City of Boston, culminating in a partnership with the Wollaston's supermarket chain that made a
new grocery store in the South End a reality (City of Boston & SuperValue, 1996).
26
The Role and Importance of Local Government Support in Supermarket Development
Still other CDC-based, joint venture supermarket development efforts have been either
initiated or facilitated by the involvement of local government officials. For example, in the late
1970s, when the Sears department store chain announced it was closing a store it had operated for
50 years at the corner of Vermont and Slauson streets in South Central Los Angeles, local
merchants appealed to the city for help (Ashman et al., 1993). The merchants were concerned
about the impact of this action and Mayor Tom Bradley conveyed this concern to Sears, which
offered to donate the property to a nonprofit organization for development. Bradley next
established the Vermont-Slauson Citizens Advisory Committee, a group of residents, merchants,
and community leaders, that incorporated as the Vermont-Slauson Economic Development
Corporation in 1979 and successfully developed the Vermont-Slauson Shopping Center in 1981
(Ashman et al.. 1993).
San Francisco's former Mayor Art Agnos is credited with significantly improving citizens'
access to nutritious, affordable food in the Bayview-Hunters Point section of San Francisco. In
1986, thirty thousand families were left without a full-service supermarket when the Safeway chain
decided to close its 29,000-square-foot supermarket on Williams Avenue. Safeway cited high
operating costs as the reason for closing the store in this high-crime, low-to-middle-income
minority community. The Bayview-Hunters Point community responded by forming the San
Francisco Organizing Project, a citizen's group representing 23 community organizations that
actively solicited the support of then-mayoral candidate Agnos. Agnos promised to help, if
elected, and as mayor he earmarked $4 million from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
for the purchase of the Williams Avenue site and the development of a new full-service
supermarket. Cala Foods, Inc., one of about 50 supermarket firms that responded to the city's
request for proposals, agreed to renovate the vacant site at no expense to the city, opening its new
store in 1992 (O'Connor - Abell, 1992).
The late Harold Washington, former mayor of Chicago, played a key role in initiating the
development of the Dominick's Supermarket-anchored Jeffery Plaza on the city's low-income
South Side. Upon his invitation, Dominick's accepted the offer to establish a modern, new
supermarket as the hub of redevelopment in this inner-city community shopping mall. The
Neighborhood Institute, a local community organization, and South Shore Bank were instrumental
in developing the project. The store, which opened in April 1990, presently has an average
weekly sales volume of $500,000, thirty-five percent of which entails food stamp redemptions
(O'Connor - Abell, 1992).
Similarly, Washington, D.C.'s former mayor, Walter Washington, is credited with
initiating efforts that led to the development of a new full-service grocery store in that city's
impoverished Shaw community. Washington's direct contacts with the chairman of the local Giant
Food supermarket chain and the creation, with mayoral support, of the Greater Shaw Community
27
Development Corporation, resulted in a joint venture between that group and the chain to establish
the 8th and O Streets supermarket (O'Connor - Abell, 1992).
The Importance of Research and Planning
Research and planning are vital to the success of any supermarket development efforts, but
particularly so for joint ventures between CDCs, grocery firms, and/or local governments.
Research documenting the magnitude of a community's food access needs can be conducted by any
and all of the key players involved in such efforts. Market analyses and feasibility studies are the
usual types of research conducted prior to the development of a supermarket project. Fairclough
and Herman (1994), writing for the Community Food Resource Center, recommend that both
preliminary and full-stage market/feasibility analyses be undertaken as project planning unfolds.
As they contend, the former provides an understanding of the neighborhood and its potential for
development, while the latter focuses more specifically on the planned store's future impact on the
community, its competition, the population served, and projected revenues.
Several CDCs, often with the assistance of local economic development agencies, banking
institutions, and private consultants, have conducted their own forecast and consumer research to
determine the feasibility of their supermarket development plans. For example, the Tacolcy
Economic Development Corporation of Miami conducted an extensive business development and
consumer research study in collaboration with the Dade County Office of Community and
Economic Development (O'Connor - Abell, 1992). The Neighborhood Institute, working with
the South Shore Bank, retained a consultant who assessed retail shopping opportunities in the
South Shore area of Chicago (O'Connor - Abell, 1992). San Diego's Mercado Associates, CDC
developers of the supermarket-anchored Mercado Retail Center in San Diego, contracted with a
consulting firm to conduct a supermarket forecast analysis more detailed than the feasibility study
conducted by the city (San Diego Mercado Associates, n.d.). Extensive survey research was also
conducted by the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation as part of its planning activities
prior to the construction of Restoration Supermarket. Internal market surveys undertaken by this
CDC during the mid-1970s had revealed the need for a safe and centrally located grocery store
in that community. Such research was an extension of the organization's general philosophy of
neighborhood development, which called for comprehensive identification and documentation of
pressing community needs (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 1995b).
Interested supermarket chains have also conducted research to determine whether the
planned sites would provide strong traffic and healthy sales opportunities (Sorkin, 1995). For
example, before the Vons Companies of Arcadia, California, announced their $100 million
expansion efforts into that state's inner-city areas, it conducted extensive focus-group research to
explore security and store design issues and to help determine the types of products desired
(Ashman et al., 1993). As part of its Urban Initiative to develop new supermarkets in Cleveland's
28
inner-city, the Finast grocery store chain made extensive use of qualitative research and focus
groups (Finast Supermarkets Urban Initiative, 1995). Safeway, developer of Washington, DCs
nearly completed Good Hope Marketplace in the Anacostia neighborhood, conducted its market
research as part of the project's joint venture planning activities.
In a few cases, local governments or designated municipal agencies have undertaken
research efforts in support of joint venture supermarket development activities. In Boston, for
example, a market feasibility study conducted by the city was a critical factor in the Wollaston
firms' decision to develop a supermarket in that city's underserved South End neighborhood (City
of Boston & SuperValue, 1996). That study showed a large and underserved market population
with the purchasing power necessary to sustain a profitable supermarket operation. Additionally,
the Detroit Department of Community and Economic Development engaged a consulting firm to
prepare a feasibility study used in the development of the Farmer Jack Grocery Store-anchored
Virginia Park Community Shopping Plaza in 1976 (Richey, 1996). Moreover, both New York
City's Department of City Planning and its Office of Economic Development have conducted
supermarket research and market studies, one of which examined the capacity of designated trade
areas to support a supermarket (Select Committee on Hunger, U.S. House of Representatives,
1992).
Administrative Considerations
A number of administrative requirements make supermarket development in inner-city
urban areas a difficult process. Among the impediments mentioned most prominently are
regulatory roadblocks and land assembly challenges. For example, a special report issued by the
American Planning Association notes that city governments and local bureaucratic red tape can
present the greatest obstacles between a supermarket chain and its desire to locate a store in the
inner city ("The Inner-City Supermarket," 1996). Reportedly, the process of obtaining the proper
permits, negotiating governmental zoning and regulatory approval, and conducting mandatory
research is far more time-consuming and costly for projects planned for urban municipalities
compared to those planned for the suburbs. For example, Fisher and Gottlieb (1996) report that
the Vons Companies had to meet approximately 29 different requirements before the City of Los
Angeles would approve its proposal to build a new supermarket in an inner-city region of that
metropolis. Becker (1992) notes the following from a 1995 Food Marketing Institute report:
. ..zoning and other regulatory procedures tend to be slower in the cities, where starting
a new store—from selecting a site to opening for business—can take anywhere from four
to five years or even longer, roughly double the suburban time. (p. 3)
However, many urban governments are streamlining their administrative requirements to
make it easier to build supermarkets within city limits. One such city is Boston, which recently
29
passed a law providing developers with a money-back guarantee on project completion dates
(Robaton, 1996). Dallas (TX) also simplified its permit and planning process in 1990, following
a consolidation of two municipal business and marketing offices (Henderson, 1994).
Site Assembly Considerations
Finding suitable sites on which to build supermarkets in the inner city can often be difficult
as sites of the right size at the right location are few and far between. Safeway Stores, for
example, generally require a four to five-and-a-half acre site ("The Inner-City Supermarket,"
1996); similarly, the California-based Vons chain claims that the minimum amount of space the
company needs to build its smallest store is a five-acre lot (Ashman et al., 1993). Since land
parcels of this size generally are not available within most urban metropolitan areas, the process
of acquiring the amount of commercially zoned land necessary for one store often takes from 5
to 10 years. The severity of this problem of lack of space is further underscored in the cases of
Chicago and Los Angeles. The development of Jeffery Plaza, the Dominick's Supermarket-anchored
shopping center on Chicago's South Side, required eight years and substantial
government involvement to assemble 21 contiguous parcels (Porter, 1995). Moreover, Rebuild
LA (n.d ), a Los Angeles-based CDC, estimates that only 9 out of 200 vacant or underutilized lots
in South Central Los Angeles are larger than one acre.
On the other hand, examples of how cities have helped with land acquisition or site
assembly also abound. For instance, in response to the aggressive and noteworthy efforts of the
New York City-based Community Food Resource Center, key city agencies in that metropolis are
increasingly focusing their attention on promoting supermarket development on city-owned
property. In 1992, the city's Economic Development Corporation offered land for development,
with financial incentives, in two areas of Brooklyn, given that the proposals submitted included
supermarket development as a part of their plans. Developers were selected for this initiative and
supermarket operators signed leases in 1993. Additionally, New York City's housing agency has
evaluated the need for setting aside adequate land for large supermarkets as part of that agency's
plan for additional affordable housing (Community Food Resource Center, 1994).
Financial Incentives for Supermarket Development
Cities are increasingly taking steps to attract supermarkets to the inner city by offering a
variety of incentives ranging from infrastructure site improvements and low-interest loans to
EZ/EC-allowed tax credits. A few cities have even absorbed site improvement costs to stimulate
supermarket development. One such case involves Finast Supermarkets and the development of
the Garrett Square Finast store, which opened on Cleveland's East Side in 1990. This site
previously had been used as a streetcar storehouse, bus depot, and repair facility; however, to
30
facilitate its transition to a supermarket development, the city of Cleveland paid to clean up the
oil contamination on the site at a cost of over $200,000 (TRI, 1995). In another instance, the
Greater Southwest Development Corporation (GSDC) of Chicago secured $400,000 worth of site
improvements from the city, including traffic signals, partial sewer relocation, and utility
realignment to "sweeten" the development of the Jewel Supermarket and Osco Drugstore in that
community in 1985 ("Successful Urban Center Supermarkets," 1996).
Financing arrangements also include low-interest loans to developers, revenue-sharing
among CDCs and developers, and city financing of supermarket construction costs, including site
acquisition and improvement costs. Among the types of incentives that have been offered by city
governments are land and buildings at discounted rents; property and sales tax breaks; tax
concessions on development fees, infrastructure costs, and first-year business deductions; and
EZ/EC-allowed tax credits.
Federal sources of funding used most often by CDCs for supermarket development are as
follows (O'Connor - Abell. 1992; Ement. 1995; Urban Initiative. 1995; USDA, Food and
Nutrition Service, 1996; The Retail Initiative, 1996; Weinberg, 1996):
• HUD Community Development Block Grants
• HHS Discretionary Grants
• HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantees
• Economic Development Administration Grants from the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Small Business Administration (SBA)
• U. S. Department of Agriculture-sponsored loan and grant programs, including the
USDA's Business and Industrial Guaranteed Loans (commercial lending)
Additionally, the Community Food Projects Program administered by USDA provides funding for
competitive grants for organizations working on food access-related projects such as community
gardens, farmers' markets, inner-city food store development, community-supported agriculture
farms and food policy councils.
Model CDC Joint Venture Supermarket Projects
The CDC joint venture supermarket development model most often cited in the recent food
access literature is the partnership between the New Community Corporation (NCC) of Newark,
New Jersey, and Pathmark Stores, Inc., of Woodbridge, New Jersey. The 43,000-square-foot
store developed by NCC and Pathmark, which opened in July 1990 following a 10-year struggle,
serves 50,000 shoppers a week and has generated over 300 full and part-time jobs for
neighborhood residents.
31
As described in the Food Marketing Institute's (FMI) (n.d.) case study of this initiative,
the roles played by CDCs such as NCC and RSC are critical to the success of the joint venture.
These roles are discussed in the FMI study using the following four CDC effectiveness criteria as
a framework:
Criteria #1: A Long-term Commitment to Revitalizing the Neighborhood
NCC's track record in housing and community development began during the early
1970s when its goal was to provide affordable housing for low-income residents.
Since that time, it has developed more than 2,500 units of housing, transitional
housing for the homeless, day care centers for children, senior citizen housings,
career training services, a health clinic, and other services and facilities for the
community.
Criteria #2: Ability to Obtain Broad Community Support for its Projects
Over the years, NCC had earned the respect of the community and the municipal
government and had built a solid relationship with local businesses. It also
understood the community's local needs, priorities, and history. Thus, the
organization's joint venture supermarket project was well-received in the
community.
Criteria #3: Willingness to Engage in and Effectiveness in Negotiating the Often Very
Complex Site Assembly/Land Improvement Process
At the time of the supermarket development project, NCC had close to 25 years
experience in working with municipal government representatives and their
regulations. The most difficult hurdle the organization had to overcome for this
particular project was land assembly—that is, putting together the 3.3-acre site,
which was composed of 62 individual lots. The necessary space became available
after NCC coordinated a petition signed by 12,000 local residents declaring the
need for a supermarket and initiated several lawsuits prompting a civil response to
the issue. Additionally, NCC's committed and effective staff and board of
community leaders used their influence to keep the development process moving
along.
Criteria #4: Ability to Pull Together Sufficient Financing
As a nonprofit organization, NCC was eligible for financial assistance that was not
available to for-profit businesses such as grants, low-interest loans, tax exemptions,
and subsidies from city, state, and federal sources. Due to its extensive experience
in developing financial packages for public projects, NCC was able to raise $14
million in public and private financing for the supermarket shopping center.
The establishment in 1994 of The Retail Initiative (TRI), a national fund to support CDCs
32
developed and/or own full-service supermarket-anchored facilities and retail outlets in their
neighborhoods, has drawn increased attention to and heightened interest in the roles of CDCs in
inner-city supermarket development ("The Inner-City Supermarket," 1996). TRI was formed by
the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the nation's largest financial community
development intermediary providing support to CDCs. The LISC was created by the Ford
Foundation and six other corporations in 1979. Since then, it has raised approximately $850
million to help more than 900 CDCs in 30 cities build in excess of 42,000 housing units and 7.7
million square feet of commercial space. TRI was designed to enable CDCs to revitalize their
neighborhoods by acquiring ownership interests in supermarket properties or shopping centers.
Initially, it worked to facilitate the development of 12 to 14 retail projects in inner-city
neighborhoods throughout the United States. As of September 1995, TRI was exploring
opportunities in 35 cities (Garry, 1995).
During fall 1995, the National Congress for Community Economic Development
(NCCED), a consortium of CDCs, conducted a survey of its members to identify those who were
developing or interested in developing supermarkets and/or other types of retail shopping centers.
NCCED's report of the survey, entitled "Supermarket/Retail Development in Low-Income Cities,"
documents significant and emerging contributions of CDCs in inner-city supermarket development.
The CDCs highlighted in Appendix F were among those participating in the survey. The
information presented in this table provides examples of a wide spectrum of current and planned
CDC-related supermarket development activities.
Findings from the Qualitative Study
As a strategy for improving access to food, the respondents interviewed for this study
indicated that the strategy of supermarket development is a fairly prevalent one employed by
communities in both rural and urban areas. Of all the food access projects they discussed, about
30% of them involved supermarket development as a solution to improving communities access
to nutritious, affordable food. Moreover, according to the respondents' reports, these projects
were very successful, receiving on a scale from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating greater
success, an average rating of about 14.
The respondents noted some of the specific obstacles identified in the literature as being
faced by underserved communities in their efforts to implement a successful supermarket
development project. These included the following:
*" community members' lack of education and background information about
the development;
^ inadequate financing to launch, support, and/or maintain a supermarket
—
development project;
<•" difficulties in obtaining a suitable site or land;
«" lack of support and understanding for supermarket development within the
community;
«" lack of cooperation from potential retailers;
•■ political issues that impede supermarket development;
•" zoning hurdles;
*■ issues of crime and safety in the supermarket locale;
^ limited or poor transportation options for local shoppers;
•* lack of adequate warehouse space; and
•" inadequate refrigeration facilities.
According to the respondent . the strategies generally used to address these obstacles fell
into two major categories:
(1) efforts aimed at helping community food access advocates work more closely with
retail food suppliers or large chain store corporations to develop supermarket
projects; and
(2) the creation of CDCs to facilitate supermarket development, primarily via the
establishment of joint venture partnerships with retail food firms.
All of the initiatives the respondents described as exemplary models of supermarket
development in underserved communities were located in urban areas, and many of these were in
distressed areas of the city. Some of the respondents' comments indicated their beliefs that food
suppliers and large chain stores, which have participated in several supermarket development
initiatives across the country, had to be greatly enticed in a variety of ways to invest in these
underserved communities. They also shared important insights on the activities of and directions
taken by community groups and retailers alike to successfully complete these projects. These
included the following activities:
*~ the use of media campaigns and public relations firms;
34
.
** the initiation of efforts aimed at educating the public and gaining interest and
support for the projecv;
+" the use of extensive pre-development research;
*• the establishment of effective relationships with local government officials, with
transportation and public safety officials, and other related agencies;
«•" the securing of management firms to assist in the operation of the stores upon
completion; and
•* the creation of community employment and decision-making opportunities.
Such activities were used in conjunction with several kinds of initiatives, including the
development of a large, modern, well-known chain supermarket where there was previously none
for miles around, rebuilding and renovating an existing dilapidated store, or starting a smaller
grocery store effort.
The respondents had high praise for the role of CDCs in supermarket development. They
generally maintained that these groups were successful primarily because of the outlets they
provided for the emergence and development of strong leadership and advocacy in underserved
communities. They also spoke highly of CDCs involvement in establishing partnerships with
supermarket firms, garnering support from and consensus within the communities to be served,
and gaining access to funding sources.
Despite the success of several supermarket development projects across the country, about
16% of the respondents' comments warned against viewing this strategy as a panacea. They
stressed that supermarket chains generally do not have much experience in meeting the food needs
of diverse ethnic/cultural communities. An independently-owned grocery chain cited was the
Bronx, New York-based Bravo, which focuses on providing ethnic-oriented foods and produce
which reflect the food shopping needs of local Hispanic and African American communities.
Three particularly noteworthy public/private partnerships described by the respondents are
noted in Exhibit A below.
35
Exhibit A
Exemplary Supermarket Development Projects Described by the Study Respondents
Project One:
According to one respondent, New Jersey-based Pathmark Stores worked closely with
a local CDC to secure land for a new inner-city supermarket in order to overcome
controversy over the use of the land for store development. The CDCplayed a
critical role as a advocate for the project, conducting important research such as
community opinion surveys.
Project Two:
Another respondent described a New York City supermarket development project in
which the close working relationship established between a CDC and a retail grocery
firm resulted in successful political networking and lobbying for the cause of
improving food access in an underserved urban community. The CDC helped to
resolve issues such as zoning andfinancing. The partnership engaged a public
relations firm to conduct a media campaign explaining the benefits of a supermarket
to community residents.
1
Project Three:
Another New York City project highlighted by a respondent involved a three-way
partnership between a CDC, local churches, and the Urban League to build a very
successful supermarket. The CDC took a strong leadership role, but all three
partners made significant contributions to the effort. Together, they were able to
convince the city to clean up the land identified for development and to address
security problems by hiring a guard and building a fence around the property.
36
CHAPTER IV
FARMERS' MARKETS, PUBLIC MARKETS, AND FOOD COOPERATIVES
Farmers' Markets
The modest attention given farmers' markets by the respondents in the present study belies
the extensive body of literature documenting both the positive impact of these outlets on
underserved communities' access to nutritious, affordable food and the general widespread support
for them in these communities. This alternative is especially important in underserved low-income
urban communities, where the availability of fresh produce is typically limited due to the
transport, refrigeration, and storage constraints faced by other food outlets. In these settings,
farmers' markets have been shown to provide not only a welcome dietary change-of-pace for
inner-city residents but also a source and center of community awareness and pride. This chapter
presents a more extensive review of the research on farmers' market development as a food access
improvement strategy, and explores the respondents' comments about the benefits and
impediments associated with this approach. Exemplary farmers' market projects are noted to
provide a deeper understanding of the opportunities and obstacles faced by communities opting
to utilize this strategy.
Findings from the Literature
Sommer, Wing, and Aitkens (1980) report that the quality of the produce offered for sale
at farmers' markets often overrides price considerations for many consumers, yet the savings noted
by farmers' market shoppers is appreciable. Pelsue's (1984) survey of consumers at farmers'
markets and roadside stands in Vermont and Estes's (1985) survey of North Carolina farmers'
market shoppers concur, noting that product quality was the overwhelming reason respondents
shopped at these markets. Additional research further documents that a key motivating factor for
consumer patronage of farmers' markets is consumers' perceptions that they offer a superior
quality of food (Johnson & Bragg, 1994, 1996; Anderson, Smoley, Morris, & Bragg, 1993;
Baharanyi, Tackie, Pierce, & Woolery, n.d.; Burns & Johnson, 1996; Cornell University,
Department of Rural Sociology, Community Food Resource Center, 1995; Fisher & Gottlieb,
1996; Stegelin, 1988). Sommer's (1985) comprehensive study of 17 farmers' markets in
California offers the following conclusions:
• Prices at farmers' markets were 34% lower than prices for similar items in nearby
supermarkets.
_
• Many shoppers believed the produce they purchased from farmers' markets was
fresher.
• In a double-blind test, both researchers and consumers preferred farmers' market
tomatoes, bell peppers, peaches, apricots, and watermelons over those offered for
sale at supermarkets.
Indeed, according to Field and Sommer (198?), the foremost benefit to consumers of shopping at
a farmers' market seems to be the increased access to fresher, and therefore better tasting
(according to consumers), high-quality produce these outlets provide.
Stegelin's (1988) inquiry into the reasons for shopping at farmers' markets cited most often
by consumers stressed the following factors: freshness, quality, selection, availability, purchase
size, location, and price. When asked the main reason they shop at farmers' markets in a survey
conducted by Ashman et al. (1993) for the Interfaith Hunger Coalition, inner-city shoppers most
often cited freshness and quality followed by price. Other important factors identified as a result
of Cornell University's (1995) examination of farmers' market vendors in the northeastern United
States were the variety of produce sold.
The primary obstacles to increased consumer utilization of farmers' markets are inadequate
publicity about and inaccessible location of these outlets. However, intensive and favorable
publicity and the generation of enthusiasm and knowledge about a market through the use of
various media can override location drawbacks (i.e., distance, nonproximity to public
transportation), and improved transportation mechanisms (i.e., shuttle service, convenient bus
routes) can increase the number and types of shoppers who patronize these outlets. Nonetheless,
report' indicate that most consumers usually learn about farmers' markets through newspapers and
tourist promotion programs as well as informal means such as word-of-mouth, from friends or
neighbors, or by walking or driving by these markets (Johnson & Bragg, 1996; Baharanyi et al.,
n.d.; Hall, 1990; Merrill-Corum, 1987; Pelsue, 1984; Stegelin, 1989). Whenever possible,
farmers' markets should be established in locations that are easily accessible via local consumers
normal travel methods and patterns. Other obstacles to utilization of farmers' markets include
limited hours of operation, inadequate parking facilities, and limited product availability.
Findings from the Qualitative Study
The establishment of fanners' markets was mentioned in 15% of the respondents'
comments about the strategies used by underserved communities to gain access to nutritious and
affordable food. However, despite the infrequent mention, their general consensus was that
fanners' markets tend to be very successful projects. On a rating scale from 0 to 15, farmers'
markets received an average rating of 14.2 from these respondents. Overall, the respondents
strongly advocated the farmers' market approach as a viable strategy and solution to the lack of
38
variety and the poor quality of fresh produce available to underserved communities.
The respondents corroborated the findings from the literature in their comments which
noted that farmers' markets did not achieve success in underserved communities unless they
overcame some considerable challenges. Those mentioned included:
*" lack of financing to initiate and maintain farmers' markets;
•" communities' lack of background and business knowledge about how to establish
and run farmers' markets;
•• difficulties in meeting health codes;
■•* inadequate transportation routes to and from the markets; and
** farmers' unwillingness or inability to accept food stamps as payment for food
items.
To overcome these obstacles, the respondents noted that several communities established
food policy councils to provide leadership and advocacy in the creation of farmers' markets. Such
an organization, they claimed, was often deemed necessary by community members in order to
establish effective working relationships with officials in municipal, federal, and other local civic
agencies and organizations that were also involved in addressing food access issues. For example,
many of the groups interested in establishing farmers' markets in their communities were said to
have worked closely with local transit authorities to change bus routes or utilize a special bus to
get consumers to and from the markets. The respondents also mentioned as noteworthy farmers'
market initiatives wherein community groups found innovative ways to cut the operating costs for
their markets by cooperatively sharing food-packaging, storage, and refrigeration facilities with
other markets or retail grocers. One of the more innovative projects detailed in interviews with
the food access experts was a farmers' market that capitalized on food stamps in order to bring
low-income residents into the venue.
About 75% of the farmers' market initiatives they described were located in urban
communities, with the remaining fourth located in rural communities. Some exemplary markets
described by the respondents include those noted in Exhibit B.
39
Exhibit B
Farmers' Market Projects Described by the Study Respondents
1
Project One:
A respondent described a highly rated urban farmers' market that was established to
provide affordable, fresh produce to residents of a low-income housing development.
An important aspect of this market was that it was authorized to receive food stamps,
which enabledfood stamp customers to purchase fresh food with their coupons just
as they would at a regular grocery store. A secondfactor was that participating
farmers were given a $100 credit on their market fees to facilitate their involvement
in the market.
Project Two:
Another similarly rated project involved an urban housing project community that
organized to establish a farmers' market in conjunction with a first-class grocery
store and a community garden with vegetables being grown along a living wall"
surrounding the project.
Public Markets
Presently, both the number and significance of public markets noted in the literature and
by the respondents are relatively small; however, both sources of information indicate that the
popularity of public markets as a response to communities' food access concerns is growing. This
chapter looks at the factors associated with this phenomenon, and with the strategy itself, and
highlights both the challenges and successes met by exemplary public markets.
Findings from the Literature
As a food access strategy, the development of public markets is a recent phenomenon,
having evolved to growing prominence over the past 20 years (Baum & Spitzer, 1995).
Increasingly, public markets are seen as economic and business development catalysts. A
resurgence of public markets has occurred in cities and communities throughout the United States.
A number of exemplary and innovative public market projects have been initiated, including: the
Country Market in Buffalo (NY), El Mercado in Hartford (CT), El Parion in San Antonio (TX),
the Houston (TX) International Market, the Eugene (OR) Saturday Market, the French Market in
New Orleans (LA), the Union Square Greenmarket and La Marqueta in New York City, the
Farmers' Market in Jamaica, Queens (NY), the North Market in Columbus (OH), the Toledo (OH)
40
•
Public Market, the Pasco (WA) Farmers' Market, the Pike Place Market in Seattle (WA). and the
Uptown Market in Charlotte (NC). Additionally, when completed, the proposed Grove Arcade
Public Market in Asheville (NC) is anticipated to become one of the most innovative public
markets for its prospective role in stimulating increased food access and distribution in the western
North Carolina area. It also has the potential to impact job creation, community revitalization.
and local business development.
Findings from the Qualitative Study
A community initiative involving the establishment of a public market was detailed by only
one of the respondents. In this instance, the respondent noted that the market, located in an urban
setting, was very successful (rated 14). However, the developers had to first overcome challenges
associated with acquiring sufficient financing for the market. In response to these challenges, the
developers conducted an extensive campaign to secure funds for capital expenditures and
operational support. Local support for the initiative was strong, and the market subsequently was
able to thrive. According to the respondent, one of the keys to the market's success was that its
developers took advantage of technical assistance in public market development and operations
provided by various organizations and agencies. Additionally, it offered a wide range of fresh
produce to urban dwellers previously underserved by quality food outlets and hired local people
familiar with and to the community, its members, and needs.
Food Cooperatives
Over the past three decades, the popularity of food cooperatives (commonly called "food
co-ops") as a response to food access concerns has peaked, waned, and peaked again. Moreover,
these ventures have assumed an increasing variety of organizational and operational configurations
in response to the shifting dietary, socioeconomic, political, and philosophical orientations of their
members. Although but slight mention was made of food coops by the respondents in this study,
the rare instance noted suggests that this strategy, when well-conceived and supervised, can yield
significant rewards to underserved communities with scarce material and logistical resources.
Findings from the Literature
The National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) reports the existence of
approximately 4,000 cooperative food-buying clubs and 400 storefront cooperatives in the United
States (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 1995a). Cooperatives are business ventures that are
voluntarily organized, collectively owned, and cooperatively controlled by those who use its
services and who together contribute to its operation and share and redistribute the risks, profits,
and benefits of ownership amongst themselves (Singerman, 1986). Food cooperatives are
businesses organized along this line that offer fresh produce and grocery items to their members.
41
Growth in the number of food cooperatives reached its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, partly
due to economic forces, including the closing of supermarkets in inner cities (Cotterill, 1981).
Additionally, heightened interest in food cooperatives was attributable to a confluence of social
and political forces. A history of this era is provided in the Interfaith Hunger Coalition report,
"Seeds of Change" (Ashman et al.. 1993). For example, this report notes that social and civil
rights workers active during this period encouraged the development of cooperatives in inner cities
as a form of community and economic development. Additionally, consumer activists called for
food co-ops as a response to food safety issues and the high rates of inflation affecting food prices
during the 1970s. As a result of President Johnson's "War on Poverty" programs, the Interfaith
Hunger Coalition report notes that financial and technical assistance was made more widely
available to those interested in forming food cooperatives in low-income areas. Consequently, by
1979, close to 3.000 cooperative food stores and buying clubs were operating in the United States
and Canada. The 1980s ushered in an era of conservatism as the social activism that had provided
much of the impetus for food cooperatives began to fade. The 1980s were also characterized by
a dramatic reduction in the number of food cooperatives, which, in part, reflected a reluctance of
cooperatives to adapt to the changing environment (Bandy, 1992).
Recently, however, retail cooperative food stores have experienced strong competition
from national food chains and gourmet food as well as from health food chains that are entering
markets traditionally served by cooperative food retailers (Bandy, 1992). Other retail cooperatives
were found to operate from a severe competitive disadvantage due to inadequate facilities and
equipment including unattractive displays, limited shelf space, and outmoded storage and
processing technologies. Additionally, the establishment of retail cooperative food stores often
require extensive computer and marketing capabilities, technical assistance, and management
expertise, which residents of underserved areas may not have. On the other hand, pre-order food
cooperatives were focnd to be more numerous because they typically are smaller operations that
require little technical expertise and smaller initial outlays of funds. However, the inadequate
capital often found available to food co-ops negatively affects the desirability of the distribution
location, facilities, and equipment as well as the product and services mix. Moreover, food co-ops
are greatly dependent on the commitment, time, loyalty, and competence of members, resources
that, for many low-income consumers, are often overruled by considerations related to other
aspects of survival.
Nonetheless, as the 1990s unfold, signs of increased interest in food cooperatives are
emerging. In the Gallup Organization's (1994) survey of the American public on awareness of
business cooperatives, a key finding was that two-thirds of those surveyed indicated they would
be either "somewhat" or "much more likely" to purchase food products from cooperatives. In their
national survey of over 12,000 adults, Sommer, Becker, Hohn, and Warholic (1983) reported that
when asked what type of cooperative they would be interested in joining, more than half of the
respondents chose a food cooperative. Additional interest in food co-ops is being spearheaded by
the NCBA (1996), which is currently conducting a national cooperative food-buying survey in
42
I
collaboration with the Consumer Federation of America.
Findings from the Qualitative Study
According to the respondents, the establishment of food cooperatives as a strategy to
improve communities' access to nutritious and affordable food was a rare occurrence. Of the food
access initiatives they described, fewer than 4% involved this approach. However, this strategy
was seen as a viable solution in those communities' with insufficient financial and material
resources or personnel to undertake larger, more complicated measures to address food access
problems.
Two of the food coop projects described by the respondents were implemented in urban
communities, and one was established in an underserved rural community. One of these urban
coops received a success rating of 12 on the 15-point scale, while the other was rated as being very
unsuccessful (1 out of 15). The rural coop, on the other hand, received a top rating of 15 from
the respondent who described it.
Among the challenges and impediments noted by the respondents with regard to food
cooperatives as a food access improvement strategy were the following:
*" lack of financing to initiate and maintain food cooperatives;
^ communities' lack of background and business knowledge about how to establish
and run food cooperatives; and
^ difficulties in obtaining a suitable site to house a food cooperative.
The respondents noted, however, that organizers of food cooperatives, when they were
successful, approached these obstacles in a variety of ways:
•" by soliciting support for and involvement in cooperatives at the grassroots level;
■*" engaging in education initial, ves to inform community members of the advantages
of food coops;
+" seeking grants to fund and support the establishment and operation of food
cooperatives; and
*~ organizing to change public policy at the local and national level to help make
communities more conducive to the establishment of food cooperatives as a means
of improving food access.
43
A brief description of the most highly rated food cooperative project identified by a
respondent is provided in Exhibit C below. In this noted example, a group of residents of a rural
midwestern community with no local grocery store formed a successful food cooperative by
educating and empowering local consumers.
Exhibit C
An Exemplary Food Cooperative Project
A group of residents of this rural community began their efforts to establish a food
cooperative by conducting extensive background research, including consulting with
another community that had already formed one. Then, they set about the task of
gaining support and cooperation for the initiative from other community residents, to
the point that they significantly heightened local awareness ofproblems offood
access in their area and mobilized considerable consensus for the establishment of a
coop. The group was soon able to organize volunteers to run the coop, identify a site
and other necessary resources, and locate wholesale distributors and suppliers of
food who were willing to work with them. They hired a truck and driver to deliver
food directly to the community and began operation. This cooperative venture
received a success rating of 15 from the expert respondents.
44
CHAPTER V
ADDITIONAL FOOD ACCESS STRATEGIES
Urban Agriculture
As both the literature and the respondents revealed, support for community gardening and
farming projects as a response to underserved urban communities' food access problems has been
mixed. Similarly, the results of these projects have also been mixed yet moderately favorable.
Some results were indirect and far-reaching and subsequently difficult to measure. This chapter
expands the discussion of urban agricultural initiatives to look at this strategy's specific challenges,
successes, and potentials.
Findings from the Literature
Community gardening is a form of community-based urban agriculture by which